Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT (CASES)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Attorney-General if he can now state when the first cases will be heard by the Restrictive Practices Courts.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I am not yet in a position to say when the first cases are likely to be heard in the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his answer will cause some disappointment, having regard to the fact that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act became law a long time ago? Can he say how many cases are on the waiting list and whether he will arrange to deal with them as expeditiously as possible?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will remember that this Registrar is an independent statutory corporation. It would not be constitutionally right for me to indicate the kind of inquiry he makes of me.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General if he will now take the necessary steps for the revision of the regulations relating to the contributions exacted from those who obtain a certificate for legal aid.

The Solicitor-General: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 10th December last year.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Solicitor-General think it a great pity that he has not something to add? Does he not think it time that there was something to add? A great deal of hardship has arisen from the regulations in their present form, and many people find themselves afflicted with having to pay contributions, which defeats the whole object?

The Solicitor-General: It is not convenient to debate now the various propositions of the hon. Member, but, from the objective view, it is sensible to await the comments of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee comprising these very matters, and I do not think they will be long delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL (PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General which counsel have been briefed to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the subject of Parliamentary Privilege.

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend, with Mr. Rodger Winn on the one hand, and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), with Mr. Bryan Clauson on the other.

Mr. Lipton: I regret that the Attorney-General is not able to be present to answer this Question because he is engaged on other business. Is it not clear that the Attorney-General has apparently nominated himself as one of the counsel in this case? Will the Solicitor-General represent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, having been in a minority of one on the Committee of Privileges, on which he served as a Member of this House, it would be more seemly and in accordance with the highest standards of professional etiquette if arrangements were made for someone else to argue the case in derogation of our Parliamentary Privileges?

The Solicitor-General: The answer to the first of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions is, "Yes". The answer to both parts of the second supplementary question is, "No".

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Westminster Hall (Lighting)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for the ordinary lighting in Westminster Hall to be disconnected and the floodlights to be permanently switched on during the hours of darkness in order that the unique beauty of the hammer-beam roof may be better appreciated.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The floodlights alone would not give enough light in the body of the Hall after dark. Members can themselves switch the floodlights on and off at any time.

Mr. du Cann: My suggestion was that the ordinary lighting should be disconnected because the flood lighting was so much better. Would not my hon. Friend agree with that suggestion?

Mr. Nicholls: I am advised that flood lighting alone would not have the effect which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: If the conventional lighting cannot be dismantled altogether, can it be redesigned so that we may have a more appropriate kind?

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman will make use of the switch on the panel near the Crypt and have all the lights on together, he will see that the effect is admirable. We had a long discussion of this matter at Question Time, and we have tried to meet the requirements of the House. Since that occurred only in July, it may well be advisable to give a longer time before we think of altering it again.

Slate-Quarrying Industry, North Wales

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the Minister of Works what action he is taking to ensure that roofing slates from North Wales quarries are used in public buildings.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 20th February.

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of Works the total number of workers

employed in the North Wales slate-quarrying industry, the total output of the industry in the area, and the total value of slate exports from the area in the years 1938, 1948 and 1957, respectively.

Mr. Molson: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


NORTH WALES SLATE QUARRIES—ROOFING AND DAMP PROOF COURSE SLATES


—
1938
1948
1957


Workers employed
8,168(a)
4,611(b)
3,488(c)


Total output (tons)
227,400
109,800
78,900


Exports from U.K. (tons)
3,460(d)
683(e)
Very small —not separately shown


Separate export figures for North Wales are not available.


Notes


(a) Compiled from returns in 1937 and 1938


(b) January, 1949.


(c) December, 1957.


(d) Roofing slates only.


(a) Includes slabs.

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of Works if he will inquire into the position, prospects and problems of the North Wales slate-quarrying industry with a view to making a comprehensive statement on the future of the industry.

Mr. Molson: The condition of the slate industry is kept under regular review. I have nothing to add at present to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member will know, however, that for several reasons, of which cost is one, the popularity of slate as a roofing material has declined considerably in the last forty years and may well continue to decline.

Mr. Roberts: While not thanking the Minister for that defeatist and depressing reply, may I ask if he is aware that depression is deepening in this important industry, which is of the highest importance to the economy of North-West Wales, and that the least he can do as the responsible Minister is to institute an


immediate and fast-moving inquiry into present conditions and prospects of the industry?

Mr. Molson: I think the position of the industry is reasonably well understood. I would point out to the hon. Member that there is no great unemployment among those who are willing to work in this industry. Within the last year there has, in fact, been a shortage of labour in the industry.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what research the Government are making into possible alternative uses for slate?

Mr. Molson: We are not ourselves engaged in research, although research is continuing to take place. Bricks, tiles and lightweight aggregates are possible uses for slate in a ground-up form. One of the companies owning a quarry there is likely to begin producing shortly tiles and bricks made of ground slate.

Meeting, Trafalgar Square (Good Friday)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Works () why he has banned a meeting under the auspices of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Trafalgar Square on Good Friday which is to start a four-day march to Aldermaston led by clergymen and Members of Parliament;

(2) if he will make public the regulations issued by his Department governing the use of Trafalgar Square for meetings.

Mr. Molson: The reason why permission for holding this meeting was not given was that for the past 65 years it has been the policy of my Department generally to limit the holding of meetings in Trafalgar Square to Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. I have now reconsidered the matter and have come to the conclusion that, since the meeting would have been permitted had it been proposed to hold it on a Sunday, it would be illogical to continue to withhold consent for it on Good Friday. If the organisers care to get in touch with my Department, arrangements will be made accordingly. No detailed regulations have been issued covering assemblies in the Square, but under the Trafalgar Square Regulations, 1952, my permission is required for an assembly to take place.

Mr. Allaun: I am sure that that decision will be generally welcomed, and I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for it.

Sir P. Agnew: Is.the Minister aware that this change of a long-established practice on his part, involving as it does a change applicable to a particular day in the year, will cause consternation among many people?

Mr. Molson: My hon. Friend must realise that in the past there has been a ban upon all meetings, including religious meetings. My Department has refused permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a religious demonstration on Good Friday, 1915, and to the Rural Dean of Westminster on Good Friday, 1942. I cannot feel that there is any justification for allowing meetings which obtain my consent to be held on other Holy Days in the year and to draw this distinction on Easter Sunday and Good Friday.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that the character of this demonstration will be very different from that of the ordinary political demonstration and will be most consistent with the nature of Good Friday?

Mr. Molson: It has never been the intention that my powers to allow or disallow a meeting in Trafalgar Square should be used as some kind of censorship upon the kind of meeting held. Because this meeting would have been permitted on a Sunday, or even Easter Sunday, I did not feel that the fact that Good Friday is technically not a Bank Holiday was a sufficient reason for continuing the ban.

Mr. Fell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Hadrian's Wall

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction over the methods employed in preserving Hadrian's Wall; and whether he will have the work examined with a view to satisfying himself of the soundness of the technique employed and give an undertaking that the work will be properly supervised.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Works what advice he has sought from aræologists in connection with the restoration of those sections of Hadrian's Wall for which he is responsible.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what supervision he provides over the repairing of Hadrian's Wall; how much of the wall has been dismantled at Birdoswald and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Molson: The Ancient Monuments Board for England approves my Ministry's methods of maintaining Hadrian's Wall. The archæological policy of the repairs is directed by my Inspectors of Ancient Monuments, who make periodical visits to the work and have the co-operation of local archæologists who are specialists on Hadrian's Wall. The day-to-day work is supervised by staff with long experience of archæological restoration.
Original Roman work is exposed, retained and consolidated in the state in which it is found. Fallen stones are replaced if it is known what their original position was. Stones on the point of falling are removed from the Wall and re-bedded. Apart from this re-bedding, there has been no dismantling of the Wall at Birdoswald or elsewhere. Roman mortar is kept wherever possible, and on exposed surfaces lime mortar is used where necessary.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very detailed reply, may I ask whether I would be in order in assuming that the article which appeared under the name of Jacquetta Hawkes, I think it was, in one of the Sunday papers a fortnight ago gave an absolutely inaccurate and unfounded criticism of the methods used by my right hon. Friend's Department? I agree that it is of the greatest interest to all that the Wall should be properly and adequately looked after.

Mr. Molson: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely correct in her assumption. What is being done at Hadrian's Wall is supported by the local archæologists, and I am glad to say I have had letters from Professor Eric Birley, Professor of Romano-British history and archæology in the University of Durham, and Mr. Gillam, who is reader in the same subject in that university, approving of what

has been done. It appears to me quite clear that Mrs. Jacquetta Hawkes' article was based on inaccurate information and was written without having visited the Wall herself.

Mr. Robinson: Are there not frequently two views on matters of this kind? Is it not a fact that, in the opinion of many people who are qualified to judge, the methods used by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in this instance do not reach the normally high standards that he employs in preserving ancient monuments? Will he consider having further advice before proceeding further with this work?

Mr. Molson: There are often two opinions on every subject, the correct and the incorrect. What is being done by my archæological department, and is approved by the Board of Ancient Monuments for England and supported by a professor and a reader in archæology in the local university, is the correct line, while the line that takes the contrary view is the incorrect one.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the great interest attaching to this matter, I beg to give notice that, in order to give the Minister a better opportunity to put the facts before the House and some of my hon. Friends an opportunity of expressing their points of view, I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Son et Lumière (Westminster Hall)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the success of Son et Lumière at Greenwich, he will allow a similar event to be mounted in Westminster Hall when this House is not sitting.

Mr. Molson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I do not think opinion amongst hon. Members would approve a show of this kind in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Goodhart: While appreciating the point made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to bear in mind that this new art form has great educational value and engages the attention of young people with the great events that are now passed.

Mr. Molson: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that a great many hon. Members attended the Son et Lumière at Greenwich last year. I am


most anxious to do all I can to extend the use of this new form of art throughout both kingdoms, but I am doubtful whether the introduction of it into Westminster Hall would be acceptable.

Official Motor Cars

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Works on how many occasions during the past year official motor cars have been sent abroad to Geneva or other places on the Continent for the use of delegations attending conferences; and what is the approximate cost.

Mr. Molson: During the past year, official cars were sent to cover four conferences at Geneva. The total cost was approximately £2,000. Two cars were kept in Geneva for the duration of the first three conferences, as they were almost continuous.

Mr. Vane: Although the cost was not very great, would my right hon. Friend look at this matter again to see whether this exercise is really worth while and whether, in the end, it is not simpler to arrange for some local hire firm to provide for the delegation?

Mr. Molson: We have looked into the matter and, as far as we can make out, it is slightly cheaper to send our own cars over. It results in a certain economy in foreign exchange. There is not very much in the matter, but on the whole it is better to send British cars.

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Works what reduction has been made in the number of chauffeur-driven cars for which his Department is responsible since November, 1951.

Mr. Molson: There were 722 chauffeur-driven official cars on 1st November, 1951. When the Government Car Service was formed on 1st April, 1952, it consisted of 661 cars: there are now 277.

Mr. Vane: Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on that particular piece of administration, may I ask him to ensure that out of those which remain there are at least some sent to Geneva which are a credit to the car industry of this country and that he has not to rely on superannuated Humbers?

Mr. Molson: I would point out to my hon. Friend that, when we are trying to

be as economical as possible, it is hardly likely that we can have a fleet of brand new cars.

London Stone

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to ensure the preservation and re-erection of London Stone when Saint Swithin's Church, Cannon Street, is demolished.

Mr. Molson: I understand that the Diocesan Board of Finance of the Diocese of London proposes that the London Stone should be preserved and re-erected as nearly as possible in its present position when St. Swithin's Church is demolished and the site redeveloped.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that statement will be welcomed by all who recognise the antiquity of this monument and are interested in the traditions of London?

Mr. Molson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am entirely in agreement with what he said.

Stonehenge

Mr. N. Nicolson: asked the Minister of Works whether he now has firm proposals for re-erecting the trilithon at Stonehenge.

Mr. Molson: Preparations at Stonehenge are starting this week, and all works involved in raising the trilithon have been arranged for completion within the next three to four months. From tomorrow a model will be available for inspection in the Upper Waiting Hall, and 1 can arrange for the operations to be explained in detail if requested.

Mr. Nicolson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for making this firm decision and for making the model available? Am I not correct in thinking that there is no question of faking Stonehenge but simply of re-erecting some of the original stones into the positions they were known to occupy until they fell less than 200 years ago?

Mr. Molson: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Ancient Monuments Board, is entirely correct about this. We have no intention of trying to fake Stonehenge. It is believed that many of the stones were knocked down by the


Romans, and it appears to us appropriate to leave them in the same position as they were put at the time by the Roman invaders. The only stones we are re-erecting are those which have fallen within quite recent times. What we are doing is in accordance with advice given by the Ancient Monuments Board.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: While the right hon. Gentleman has these matters in mind, could he have another look at the plans of his Department for similar work on the stone circle at Avebury?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly look into that point.

Sir G. Nicholson: While accepting that these stones fell only 200 years ago, may I ask where the Department proposes to draw the line? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of Stonehenge—the most ancient monument in Britain and the finest stone circle in the world—a large body of archaeological opinion considers his Department is making a great mistake?

Mr. Molson: I am always accustomed to being told that my Department is making a great mistake on every subject, but my hon. Friend has not indicated what he desires—whether we are raising too many stones, or that all the other stones should be raised.

Sir G. Nicholson: Leave them as they are.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the exaggerated implications in the last supplementary question, can the right hon. Gentleman say what bodies have advised against this move?

Mr. Molson: No body has advised me against it. The Ancient Monuments Board is in favour of it, and the two most distinguished archaeologists—both from Edinburgh University—Professor Stuart Piggott and Mr. Atkinson, who made a special study of it—are in favour of doing this.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the

Council, what action has been taken regarding the conclusions on research and development contained in paragraph 26 of the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, 1956–57.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Paragraph 26 makes three points. On the first, by approving the expansion programme for the universities and technical colleges, the Government are playing their part. This expansion will ensure an increased supply of scientists and technologists. On the second, it is up to industry to take full advantage of skill made available for civil research work by the limitation of the defence programme. On the third point, the Advisory Council is now studying in greater detail the methods of financing research at universities, including the provision of supporting staff.

Mr. Willey: While thanking him for that reply, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether as yet there has been any marked redundancy and what steps the Government are taking specially to ensure that the fullest use will be made of these men with high qualifications?

Mr. Nicholls: There is no sign at all of serious redundancy, and in the replacing of any of these men the normal services of the Ministry of Labour are available. It keeps in close contact.

Committee on Scientific Manpower (Survey)

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made by the Committee on Scientific Manpower to obtain the relevant statistics and information to assess periodically the supply of scientists and engineers.

Mr. H. Nicholls: In response to a request from the Committee on Scientific Manpower, the professional scientific and engineering institutions have offered to co-operate in carrying out an annual review of their membership. In addition, it has now been decided that a further survey of the number of scientists and engineers employed in Great Britain, similar in scope to the one carried out in 1955, will be undertaken towards the end of 1958.

Mr. Willey: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why these surveys should


be over this particular period? Would it not be better to hold them more frequently?

Mr. Nicholls: It was felt that there would not be sufficient change in less than three years to justify another survey. The original one was in 1955, and we asked the Committee to estimate what the position would be in three years' time so that we can now check on its estimates.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great diversity between scientific discoveries and their application to industry and that scientists complain considerably that our inventions and knowledge are far ahead of application in industry, and that many of our ideas go to Switzerland and elsewhere to be developed by other people?

Mr. Nicholls: I do not think there is anything to substantiate the suggestion that industry does not keep in close contact with new research in this country and elsewhere.

High-Grade Paper

Mr. Tiley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council. what research is being supported by the Government with a view to lessening the cost of high quality paper.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The British Paper and Board Research Association, supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has recently perfected an improved process for the pulping of straw and esparto for use in making high-grade papers. This has increased the yield of pulp, from 40 per cent., in the old process, to about 55 per cent., without any falling off in the quality of the final product.

Mr. Tiley: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him two questions? Is any commercial use being made of this new process? Secondly, because of the increased yield of the pulp, is paper to be any cheaper?

Mr. Nicholls: Full trials have been conducted in the actual process, but it has not been put to commercial use so far because of the difficulty of getting an even supply of esparto at present. The process will certainly decrease the cost

of pulp, but we are not in a position to say whether or not the paper which flows from that will be cheaper.

Domestic Heating Appliances

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to what extent worthwhile results have accrued from research supported by the Government, directed to improving the efficiency and design of domestic heating appliances using solid fuels.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Since the freestanding convector fire was put on the market a few years ago, the most important development—also originating from the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research—has been a new type of central heating system using pipes of small bore and forced-circulation. This system can be installed without expensive structural alterations. Thus it is now possible to provide the comfort of central heating in many older houses for which installing central heating has hitherto been too expensive.

Mr. Kershaw: Can my hon. Friend search his mind and say what is the approximate cost? Can he say, for instance, what is the approximate cost of converting an ordinary three-bed-roomed house to this new system?

Mr. Nicholls: The figure I have in mind after asking questions about this is that a house of 1,100 sq. ft. would cost between £300 and £320.

European Organisation for Nuclear Research

Mr. John Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made with laboratories of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research at Geneva and when they will be completed.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The smaller nuclear particle accelerator was satisfactorily completed last August; since when it has undergone running trials and is now available for full-scale research. Satisfactory progress continues on the larger accelerator which is planned to come into


service in 1960. Good progress is also being made on the completion of the Laboratory buildings. The Third Annual Report of the Organisation will be issued shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Hall: Can my hon. Friend say what will be the total cost of this project, and what will be the contribution made by Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, can he say how many United Kingdom nationals are likely to be employed by the Organisation and what proportion they will represent of the whole?

Mr. Nicholls: The total cost of the project is about £15 million, and the United Kingdom has responsibility for about a quarter of that sum. The total staff is in the region of 170, and I think that at the present time the United Kingdom provides about 40 of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries (Protection)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the present close time for netting fish in the River Dee is insufficient to allow an adequate stock of fish to ascend the river and reach the spawning grounds; and if he will take immediate steps to extend that time by a further six hours.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by my noble Friend on 18th February.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that that answer is quite inadequate and that the salmon fishing industry is not sufficiently protected? Will he invite evidence from experts to satisfy him that something should be done in this matter?

Mr. Maclay: As my noble Friend made clear, there is to be an investigation this year, and all the points that the hon. and learned Member has in mind will certainly be taken into account in that investigation.

Lady Tweedsmuir: is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been acute

controversy on this subject for many, many years past, and that as the number of fish that reach the spawning grounds depends entirely on the weather in the early part of the season, will it be possible during this conference to consider more flexible arrangements?

Mr. Maclay: The investigation will bring out information that we shall have to study with great care in the light of the evidence available.

Bridge of Don, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of work on the new Bridge of Don, Aberdeen; and when he now expects the work will be finished and the new bridge open for traffic.

Mr. Maclay: Work is progressing satisfactorily, and though it is unlikely to be fully completed until the spring of 1959, I hope that the new bridge will be open to traffic at the end of this year.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that that Answer is far too vague, that it is very important to the trade and industry of Aberdeen that this bridge should be completed at the earliest possible moment, and that there are sufficient men unemployed in Aberdeen to get on with the work?

Mr. Maclay: What the hon. and learned Gentleman demands is beyond anybody to provide—there are such things as weather and other considerations—but the work is proceeding satisfactorily and fast, and the bridge should be ready for use by the end of the year.

Betting

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, for each of the last two years at any convenient date, the number of police raids made on shops transacting illegal ready money betting, the number of people arrested and the total of fines paid.

Mr. Maclay: For the year ended 31st December, 1956, 512 premises were visited by the police in Scotland and proceedings were taken against 10,477 persons, fines totalling £18,642 being imposed. For the year ended 31st December, 1957, the figures were 695, 12,202 and £22,595 respectively.

Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that these figures demonstrate the growing concern—and there is growing concern—amongst local authorities, police authorities and the general public at the growth of this undesirable traffic, with its evil social consequences? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as to the possibility of introducing legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which was very aware of this concern?

Mr. Maclay: The Government have undertaken to introduce legislation, but it is not yet possible to say when.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the betting laws in Scotland are just about as effective as were the prohibition laws in America and that the application of these fines is just a farce—everyone knows that betting is tolerated all over the place—and that legislation should be introduced to put it on a proper basis?

Turf Commission Agents (Shops)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of applications now before the local authorities' planning committees for permission to convert shops into turf commission agents' shops.

Mr. Maclay: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that these applications are merely a subterfuge for opening offices, after which the applicants proceed to use the premises for deliberately breaching the law? In the interval, can he advise local authorities or police authorities how to deal with the problem?

Mr. Maclay: It is correct that, strictly, planning considerations are not necessarily involved in this, but the whole question is a serious one and I have been considering whether there is any way to help local authorities in the matter.

Hydro-Electric Board (Connections)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the information which he has received

from the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland, he will now give a general direction to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board not to defer connecting applicants for electricity for the sole reason that the necessary cables have to be laid underground.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. As I have explained to my hon. Friend, such matters have to be considered in relation to what is practicable in each particular case, and that is a matter for the Board.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that throughout its history the Hydro-Electric Board has refused to lay any cables underground and that great pressure has had to be brought upon it? Is it not the case also that, in the small town of Wick, fifteen applicants have been waiting for years and that the sole reason for the Board's refusing to take the light to them is the expense of putting the cables underground, which is common practice throughout the country?

Mr. Maclay: I know very well my hon. Friend's concern about this matter, but, as I have stated, it is a matter for the Board, and I do not see that I have any powers which I could use in this particular case.

Freight Rates and Postal Facilities

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the high freight rates and the recently altered postal services between the north of Scotland and the south of Britain give to trade and industries located in England an unfair advantage over trade and industry located in Aberdeen and in other parts of the north of Scotland; and if he will consult with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Postmaster-General with a view to rectifying these injustices by treating Britain as a unit.

Mr. Maclay: I have brought the hon. and learned Member's Question to the notice of my right hon. Friends, but I understand that freight rates and postal facilities in Aberdeen are on the same basis as in other parts of Great Britain.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the matters referred to in the Question, people in the north-east of Scotland are treated as


though they were foreigners and not given equal rights? Is he aware that the Prime Minister expressed himself as being in favour of the "postalisation" of freight rates so as to give north-east business men equal opportunities with the rest of the people in this island? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Maclay: Many great brains, including the hon. and learned Gentleman's, have pondered hard on the postalisation of freight rates, but I should point out that the recent charges scheme is an improvement on the previous method of charging for the remoter areas.

Housing (Vacant Properties)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he has investigated the number of vacant houses available for renting in Scotland; and how many have been available during the past six months.

Mr. Maclay: The letting of houses is a matter for the owners, and I have no means of ascertaining the number of vacant houses available for renting during any particular period.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement is an entire contradiction of what he said on 17th December, when he stated there were numbers of houses to let, and said:
If one watches the newspapers carefully, one sees that there are…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vol. 580, c. 191.]
We are now told that he has no means of ascertaining the figure. Which of the two statements are we to believe?

Mr. Maclay: I should have thought that the hon. Lady would see clearly the difference between ascertaining an accurate number and keeping a watch on the newspapers published and seeing the flow of houses to let.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements in connection with tendering for work on the Forth Road Bridge; and what safeguards exist for ensuring full consideration for tenders coming from sections of Scottish industry affected by redundancy or short-time working.

Mr. Maclay: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board has advertised for competitive tenders for the construction of the piers and anchorages, and proposes also to advertise for competitive tenders for the construction of the approach roads and approach viaducts at the appropriate stage. As regards the bridge superstructure, the Joint Board has entered negotiations, with my approval, with a consortium of the three principal British bridge-building firms.
Tenders from Scottish firms for the main contracts will receive full consideration on their merits. In accordance with the usual procedure, the placing of any sub-contracts that may be required will be a matter within the discretion of the main contractor concerned.

Mr. MacPherson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that major public works of this kind can be of great assistance in clearing up pockets of local unemployment and short-time working? Will he review the arrangements which he has just suggested for sub-contracts so that, other things being equal, subcontracts will go to Scottish industries in which there is short-time working or redundancy?

Mr. Maclay: Much as one hopes, with propriety, that work will go on a competitive basis to Scottish firms, I do not think it would be right to interfere with the normal contracting procedure, because, after all, the contractor is responsible for doing the job in the time and at the price quoted and one cannot completely take away his powers.

Rabbits (Trapping)

Sir. W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which trap he is now recommending for the destruction of rabbits; and whether he is satisfied that it is in every respect capable of replacing the type of spring trap now in use.

Mr. Maclay: I have approved the Imbra Mark I, Imbra Mark II and Juby traps for killing or taking rabbits in rabbit holes. I am satisfied that these traps will catch and kill rabbits almost as efficiently as the gin trap and without causing the suffering inflicted by the gin trap, but, under the statutory provisions, I cannot prohibit the use of the gin trap


until I am also satisfied that, among other considerations, the approved traps are available in adequate quantities at reasonable prices.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While supporting the humanity of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him if he could state how these traps compare in weight and in price with the present gin traps?

Mr. Maclay: Not without notice of that question.

Mr. Paget: Now that the gassing of rabbits is so efficient and so easy to work, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending the abolition of traps altogether, no matter of what kind, and stop this abominable practice?

Mr. Maclay: There is a great variety of ways in which trapping has to be done, and I am afraid that I could not realistically consider that suggestion at this time.

Mr. Alexander Wilson (Death)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Lord Advocate if he will order a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Alexander Wilson in a betting-shop brawl in Possilpark, Glasgow.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): Having read all the evidence in this case, I am not satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that an inquiry should be held.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Lord Advocate aware of the widespread public disquiet in this area that such an incident should take place in full view of witnesses and yet no public inquiry should be held to establish the facts? Apart from the merits or demerits of the beginnings of this case, and no matter how it started, would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and now agree that it is in the public interest and that of the police authorities that a full public inquiry should be held to establish the facts?

The Lord Advocate: Public inquiries are held in limited circumstances. I am entitled, and only entitled, to order a public inquiry in the case of a sudden or suspicious death if I think it is in the public interest to do so. Normally, the public inquiry is held with a view to clearing up some doubt or something

of that nature. In the present case, on the evidence before me, I am quite satisfied that there is no reasonable doubt about the circumstances in which this man met his death.

Mr. T. Fraser: is not the learned Lord Advocate aware that, in view of the publicity given by the Press to the circumstances in which this man met his death, there is widespread public concern that there should be some inquiry into how he met his death?
Is he aware that we understand from the Press reports that this man, if he had not died, would himself have appeared in court on a charge of a disturbance of the peace or something like that, and that if someone else had died in the fight which ensued, this man would be charged with culpable homicide? Since no one has been charged with any offence as a result of the fight which took place in this betting house, and there has been no public explanation of what went on there at all, cannot the learned Lord Advocate appreciate that there is a need, in order to satisfy public concern, for him to order a public inquiry into this matter?

The Lord Advocate: I have taken into consideration all the matters suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite, including the question that obviously there has been public concern in the neighbourhood and in Glasgow. Despite all those matters, I am satisfied that in this case it is not in the public interest to hold an inquiry.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Dugald Johnston (Death)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the purported discovery of the skeleton of Dugald Johnston, who was boarded out in a foster-home at Dunoon and who disappeared, if he will order a public inquiry into the death and disappearance of Dugald Johnston.

The Lord Advocate: When this boy disappeared in April, 1955, the most extensive inquiries were carried out but no


trace of him could be found. In March, 1956, a skeleton was discovered, and after further elaborate investigation by the Procurator Fiscal it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the remains were those of the boy Johnston. Consideration was then given to the desirability of holding a public inquiry, but it was decided that, in view of the fact that the Procurator Fiscal had already made thorough investigation into the whole circumstances and the cause of death, it was not necessary in the public interest that such an inquiry should be held. Should, however, the hon. Lady have any facts which she would like to put before me, I shall be glad to receive them and to reconsider the position.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Lord Advocate aware that I have a great many facts, but I think they would be better dealt with in an Adjournment debate? Will it therefore be in order to suggest that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Restrictive Trade Practices

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that agreements which would otherwise have been registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act are being amended to avoid the necessity for registration; and what legislation he intends to introduce to deal with this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): One of the purposes of the Act would be defeated if agreements modified so as properly to bring them outside the scope of Part I of the Act were now to be made subject to registration by new legislation.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister agree that there is a good deal of confusion about this matter? Will he confirm that, if agreement is varied after the date on which it becomes registrable, the original agreement, together with the Amendment, does not have to be registered?

Mr. Erroll: I would have to look into that point and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister satisfied generally with the working of this Act when, eighteen months after its passing into law, no case has yet come before the Restrictive Practices Court, and when undoubtedly these agreements are being altered so as to have the same practical effect but not be subject to registration?

Mr. Erroll: If we are to bring a case to the Court concerning a major industry, time must be spent in preparing that case properly.

Mr. Jay: Could the Minister at least tell us when the first case will be brought?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exemption from Purchase Tax already extended to celestes, clavichords, harpsichords, pianofortes, spinets, virginals, pipe organs, electronic organs and reed organs, may now be extended to all other musical instruments; and what would be the approximate cost of such a concession.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement. The cost of exempting musical instruments, excluding gramophones, radio-gramophones, record-players, and records, would be rather less than £1 million a year.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House, without anticipating his Budget statement, what are the criteria which have caused Treasury officials to impose this highly discriminatory tax system on musical instruments? Why should there be one rate of tax for an oboe or a trombone and a different one for a spinet or a harpsichord? Is it because of the music they make, the noise they make, or what are the considerations?

Mr. Amory: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's interest in music, and I should hate to put any obstacle in the way of his acquisition of a trumpet of his own.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this decision


was taken and whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) voted for it?

Mr. Amory: No, I am afraid I have not that information at the moment, but it has been of long standing.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date and for what reasons it was decided that forceps and tweezers under four and a half inches in length and nail nippers not exceeding three and a half inches in length must pay Purchase Tax at 90 per cent., whereas forceps, tweezers and nippers exceeding these lengths are free of tax; whether this matter can be reviewed at an early date; and what is the present approximate annual Purchase Tax revenue in respect of forceps, tweezers and nail nippers.

Mr. Amory: The object of these longstanding distinctions is to free from tax instruments used by professional chiropodists. I do not think review is called for. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 17th December.

Mr. Nabarro: But is my right hon. Friend really suggesting that the instruments referred to here which are free of tax are used only by chiropodists, when they are known to be widely used by medical practitioners, manicurists and a variety of trades and professions? Why should he discriminate in favour of chiropodists? What is his special interest in toe nails?

Mr. Amory: I can only say that, if my hon. Friend will add to his many existing qualifications that of chiropodist or manicurist, he will be able to obtain the tools of his profession free of tax.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many disputes with regard to liability to Purchase Tax of various articles have been taken to arbitration during each of the past three years; and what has been the cost of collecting Purchase Tax for each of the last four years for which figures are available.

Mr. Amory: In 1955, two; in 1956, one; and one since. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my

right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 3rd December.

Mr. Owen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-examine the Purchase Tax on wireless and television sets.

Mr. Amory: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in connection with my general review of taxation before the Budget.

Mr. Owen: That is an encouraging statement, but is the Chancellor aware that wireless and television sets are no longer a luxury and that, in the second half of the twentieth century, they have become a social necessity? Will he not therefore now consider the removal of this restrictive tax?

Mr. Amory: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to become too exhilarated at my reply, because I ought to say that I have promised to keep in consideration also a great many other suggestions made by other hon. Members.

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there are a number of safety devices which manufacturers will not produce because they are subject to Purchase Tax; and if he will take steps to remove the tax from these items.

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mrs. McLaughlin: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider this matter very carefully, because we are taxing safety? May I remind him that many young men and women are prevented from using their own endeavour and ingenuity to produce safety devices to reduce the tremendous number of accidents in our homes? Will he review this matter again with very great interest and do his utmost?

Mr. Amory: I will take into consideration everything that my hon. Friend has said

Treasury Employees (Wages and Salaries)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in HANSARD a table showing the number of


persons or grades of employment in the Treasury which have been granted and refused wage and salary increases, respectively, since the Government's appeal for wage restraint; and why increases have been granted.

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Do not those figures show that in fact those on higher salary scales have received increases while those on lower scales have been denied theirs? Can the Chancellor explain why those in the lower income group are being deprived of increases while those in the £5,000 a year and £6,000 a year class are receiving them?

Mr. Amory: No. The reply I have given will indicate to the hon. Gentleman that the increase has been very small and consequential upon agreements entered into before the policy was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) in September.

Following is the information:


NUMBERS AND GRADES EMPLOYED IN THE TREASURY WHICH HAVE RECEIVED INCREASES IN SALARY OR WAGES SINCE 29TH OCTOBER, 1957


Grade
Number
Reason


Senior Chief Executive Office.
3
Increase was give on that part of the scale below £1,950 p.a. following the general Civil Service economic pay settlement introduced on 1st July 1957.


Security Officer.
5
The increase was consequent upon a general revision of night duty and shift allowances agreed in March, 1975.


Senior security Guard.
9


Security Guard.
25

During this period only one other claim in respect of grades employed by the Treasury has been received. As negotiations are still proceeding in this case, the question of refused increases does not arise.

Economic Situation (United States)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking with a view to preventing the economic involvement of this country in the recession now affecting the United States of America.

Mr. Amory: The Government are watching the situation closely. But there is so far no sign that the level of activity in this country is being affected adversely by the fall in activity in the United States.

Mr. Davies: Has the Chancellor not consulted or seen some of the more responsible American economic journals and the statements of responsible American economists? Is it not now obvious that it is necessary to attempt to build our export trade on a much wider base through the Commonwealth and through those countries in Eastern Europe which do not experience economic crises these days?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that every possible effort must be made to stimulate our export trade still further.

STRONTIUM 90

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to publish additional recent information about the increase of strontium 90 in sheep bones.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A report on the levels of strontium 90 in bone recorded during 1957 will be published later in the year when the compilation and evaluation of the figures has been completed.

Mr. Allaun: Since the level of strontium in the bones of sheep in Wales rose from 20 units in 1954 to the alarming figure of nearly 200 units in 1956, is it not likely that this growth has continued? As these examinations have continued since, when in 1958 will the report on them be published?

The Prime Minister: The taking of these readings is, of course, a very delicate process, and the whole record has to be scientifically checked. I am afraid that I cannot give a date today.

MINISTER OF WORKS (STATEMENT)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement concerning prices, unemployment and the Bank Rate, made by the Minister of Works at


Caxton Hall, London, on 18th February, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend indicated that the Government's disinflationary policy was not intended to lead to a serious deflation or heavy unemployment; and that the Government's monetary policy would be flexible and would be directed to conditions as they might develop. That does not go beyond what has previously been said on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister said also that the Government were interested in a high degree of unemployment but mentioned nothing about full employment. Is the Prime Minister not aware that he went on further to say that, in the event of unemployment growing, the Government would immediately cut the Bank Rate? In view of the fact that unemployment is growing, may we have some idea of when the Bank Rate will be cut?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not given a quite accurate account of what my right hon. Friend said. All he said was that monetary policy ought to be flexible, which seems to be a very sensible doctrine.

O.E.E.C. (ATOMIC ENERGY PROJECTS)

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister (1) what part this country will play in the establishment of a homogeneous aqueous reactor at Winfrith Heath, as contemplated by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation; and what this country's responsibilities, duties and contributions will be; and
(2) to what extent this country proposes to take part in the project for the joint operation under the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation of the boiling water reactor at Halden, Norway.

The Prime Minister: Both projects are still under discussion in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and no decisions have been reached. The United Kingdom is taking a full part in the discussions.

EUROCHEMIC

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister what capital contribution this country proposes to make to Eurochemic, the company for the treatment of irradiated fuels; and what right this country will have to the plutonium thereby produced.

The Prime Minister: Eurochemic is an Organisation for European Economic Co-operation joint project for the separation of plutonium and the recovery of depleted uranium. The United Kingdom already possesses sufficient processing capacity and does not, therefore, participate in Eurochemic. We do, however, provide advice, and have indicated our willingness to provide technical assistance and equipment on suitable terms.

Sir J. Hutchison: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that of the plutonium produced this country will have no share and, furthermore, will have no control over the uses of the plutonium produced in this establishment?

The Prime Minister: The point is really that, as we have sufficient capacity for our own needs, it did not seem wise to join this as a full member, but we are willing to help in any way we can with advice or technical assistance.

RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he will prepare and publish a White Paper dealing with research in radioactive fall-out resulting from atom and hydrogen bomb tests, and including also a section dealing with the effectiveness of the monitoring system in operation for scrutinising the after-effects of waste fission products from the atomic power stations.

The Prime Minister: Current programmes of research are outlined in the annual reports of the Medical Research Council, and figures showing the level of strontium 90 in bone and other substances are published from time to time. I would refer to the reply which I gave on 31st October last on the machinery for monitoring fall-out.
As regards the last part of the Question, the discharge of radioactive waste from the establishments of the Atomic


Energy Authority is strictly controlled in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act of 1954. These were referred to in the recent report on the Organisation for Control of Health and Safety in the Atomic Energy Authority (Cmnd. 342). The question of the control of waste from nuclear power stations to be built in future is at present being studied in connection with the proposals for the licensing and inspection of nuclear reactors, about which the Government intend to introduce legislation in due course.

Mr. Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I should be glad to know if he will reconsider what I ask in the second part of my Question about a White Paper on the monitoring system for the after-effects of waste fission products. This is bound to be a growing problem after all the nineteen atomic power stations come into being, and there is very little information. Should we really not have a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that, but the hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that the matter is being actively pursued by the Authority in accordance with its statutory duty.

ANGLO-SOVIET RELATIONS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister, now that he has completed his Commonwealth tour, if he will accept the

offer made by Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 23rd January, there is at present nothing to add to previous answers which I have given to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has proved himself to be an admirable "baby sitter," does the Prime Minister not realise that, if he can spare the time to go, he will, at least, have a wonderful baby sitter to look after all the problems at home and he might do much good touring in the Soviet Union in the same way as he did in his Conmmonwealth tour?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think there are at the moment circumstances in which such a visit would present some difficulties and even objections. We are, of course, looking forward to a meeting, perhaps within a reasonable time, when we shall meet all together.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 206.

Division No. 46.]
AYES
[3.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Doughty, C. J. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drayson, G. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duncan, Sir James


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Brooman-White, R. C.
Duthie, W. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bryan, P.
Elliott, R.W.(Newcastle upon Tyne, N)


Ashton, H.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Atkins, H. E.
Carr, Robert
Fell, A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finlay, Graeme


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Barber, Anthony
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Forrest, G.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Freeth, Denzil


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gammans, Lady


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, J. C. (Pollock)


Bidgood, J. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Glover, D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Dance, J. C. G.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Black, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Godber, J. B.


Body, R. F.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Deedes, W. F.
Goodhart, Philip


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, H. R.




Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, D. L. M.


Green, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Robertson, Sir David


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gurden, Harold
McAdden, S. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hall, John {Wycombe)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
McKibbin, Alan
Russell, R. S.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sharples, R. C.


Harrison, A, B. C. (Maldon)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, J, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
MacLeod John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hay, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Speir, R. M.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Storey, S.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Douglas
Summers, Sir Spencer


Holt, A. F.
Mathew, R.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hope, Lord John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hornby, R. P.
Mawby, R. L.
Teeling, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Milligan, Rt. Hon. w. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh,S.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, w.)
Neave, Airey
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nicholls, Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Vane, W. M, F.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Vaughan-Morgan, j. K.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Oakshott, H. D.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Wall, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kimball, M.
Peel, W. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kirk, P. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Webbe, Sir H.


Lagden, G. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
whitelaw, W. S. I.


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, s.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pott, H. P.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Leavey, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Leburn, W. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woollam, John Victor


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.



Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Dye, S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Inoe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A.
Edelman, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Albert (Islingon, S.W.)


Baird, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Clunie, J.
Foot, D. M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Benson, Sir George
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Beswick, Frank
Cove, W. G.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gibson, C. W.


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gooch, E. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W)
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffihs, William (Exchange)


Boyd, T. C.
Diamond, John
Hale, Leslie


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)







Hannan, W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William


Hastings, S.
Mahon, Simon
Royle, C.


Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Healey, Denis
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mason, Roy
Skeffington, A. M.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Holman, P.
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Holmes, Horaoe
Messer, Sir F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Houghton, Douglas
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mort, D. L.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hunter, A. E.
Moss, R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, A.
Swingler, S. T.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Mulley, F. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Janner, B.
Oram, A. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Owen, W. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Padley, W. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
West, D. G.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Kenyon, C.
Parkin, B. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, A.
Willey, Frederiok


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lawson, G. M.
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Lee, Frederiok (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lewis, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Richard


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John
Woof, R. E.


McCann, J.
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


MacColl, J. E.
Reeves, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


MacDermot, Niall
Reid, William



McGhee, H. G.
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGovern, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Short and Mr. Wilkins.


McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

ROAD TRAFFIC (PARKING OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the parking of vehicles in the highway in residential areas; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill will simply give to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation power to make regulations governing parking of vehicles in residential areas of towns and cities. I emphasise at the outset that to regulate, as my proposed Bill is intended to regulate, is not necessarily to prohibit. Indeed, I have it in mind that the effect of the Bill may be specifically to license the type of parking I have under consideration.
I think it would be helpful if, at the beginning, I defined the problem that the proposed Bill seeks to solve. There is a rapidly increasing number of people who own cars, who do not use them frequently and who live in houses, such as terraced houses, which have no garages and no land on which garages could be built. These people habitually use the highway as their garage.
The number of cars in the Metropolitan area is increasing at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. Most of this increase will, I believe, come in the class of cars to which I am referring and which, I estimate, will number 300,000 at the end of the next ten years. As the law now stands, these 300,000 people will be dependent for their garaging arrangements upon the police turning a blind eye to what they are doing. This is an unworthy and demoralising situation for all concerned and provision ought to be made to put a stop to it.
Clearly, therefore, the House should recognise this problem now and acknowledge that in due course the rights of people who habitually park on the highway should be regulated and that, when we so regulate them, we should have due regard to the rights of other people concerned, other users of the highway, local authorities and public services.
I want to make quite clear what is not—I repeat not—intended by the proposed Bill. First, there is no intention

to regularise the long-term parking of untaxed and unroadworthy vehicles, cars left in the highway jacked-up for months at a time with bits of tarpaulin over them. Secondly, the Bill is not intended to regularise the long-term—or, indeed, any—parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas. Thirdly, there is no attempt here to provide a solution of the totally different problem of the parking of cars in congested shopping areas.
I want to say a word about the method which it is proposed should be adopted in the Bill. The Bill would merely put upon the Minister the duty of making regulations to deal with this problem. It does not presume to offer any cut and dried solution at the moment. Personally, I have ideas as to what may be necessary. In due course, I think, it will be necessary to define what are residential areas. It will be necessary to zone them. It will be necessary to establish a maximum number of cars which may be parked in specified streets. It may well be necessary to license cars to park there and, possibly, even to charge for these licences.
It would be presumptuous, at this stage to press for any one solution. I do, however, suggest that the time has come for the Minister to make a full inquiry, to size up the problem and, in due course, to present regulations to Parliament. In the meantime, the House will have to be content to rely upon the good sense and local knowledge of the police to hold a reasonable balance between the rights of all users of the highway under the existing law.
The proposed Bill has two virtues. It serves to reassure the public that this House has taken note of its anxiety about the problem; and I know that this anxiety goes very deeply. Secondly, it will serve as a reminder to the House itself that in due course, and after inquiry and deliberation, action will have to be taken. I hope, therefore, that the House will see fit to give leave for the introduction of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Iremonger, Mr. John Barter, Sir Albert Braithwaite, Wing Commander Bullus, Mr. A. E. Cooper, Mr. Nigel Fisher, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Frederic Harris,


Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Leaslie Thomas.

ROAD TRAFFIC (PARKING OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS)

Bill to regulate the parking of vehicles in the highway in residential areas; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

COMPULSORY PURCHASE (TO PREVENT EVICTIONS)

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise local authorities to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of preventing evictions from houses decontrolled under Section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957; to simplify and accelerate the procedure for compulsory purchase, whether made under this Act or for the said purpose under the Housing Act, 1957; to re-enact for the said purpose powers for the speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
Most hon. Members of the House—this applies, I hope, to both sides-have been alarmed by developments which have taken place under Section 11 of the Rent Act. The number of people who have been served with notice of eviction is growing and is very alarming. Not only that, but the way in which the Act is being used to force completely unfair contracts or bargains upon reluctant tenants is an alarming feature of the use of this Section, so much so that even the Minister himself was compelled, a few days ago, to make a very strong statement on this matter.
While making that strong statement, the Minister said that there is plenty of time for the bad landlords to think. There is not plenty of time. The deadline is next October. There are only seven months. Many people are already faced with this threat. There is not much time either for landlords to think things over, or for the House to take action.
All hon. Members know the sort of problems that arise from day to day. First, there are the evictions, and, in the

nature of things, these mostly apply to elderly people who have been living in their houses for many years. I have had —and I am sure that this applies to other hon. Members—sad processions of old people coming into my advice bureau to say that they are faced with eviction. They ask for aid and comfort and I can give them none. The decree is there. Next October they go out into the streets, and the blunt fact is that there is nowhere else for them to go. The possibility of large numbers of houses being vacant and to let at rents has not materialised. In Birmingham, for example, we still have 64,000 families on the register, and the prospect of these unfortunate people obtaining accommodation is practically nil.
But the problem extends beyond that because, as the Minister has pointed out, this threat of eviction has been used in tens of thousands of cases to enforce completely unreasonable contracts. For example, a family of five, whom I know, were offered a new thre-year lease—and a three-year lease offered under the Rent Act is not a permanent solution to these people's problems. It is merely a respite for an additional two-and-a-half, or two-and-a-quarter years, and then these unfortunate people will be faced again with the problem of eviction.
In this case, they were offered a three-year lease at a rent about two-and-a-half to three times what it was before for a house in a state of dilapidation. The new rent, including rates, came to about £3 10s. How can these people afford to pay it? They have to afford it and no doubt they will, but it will mean that the children will have to do with less food. When they came to me I advised them to go to the landlord to deal with the question of repairs, because one of the provisions in the new lease was a repairing clause which placed the whole obligation for repairs upon the tenant. One of the most obnoxious features of many of the new leases offered by landlords is that there is not only an exærbitant rent but the whole burden of an onerous repairing clause is placed upon the tenant.
Here is the tenant between the devil and the deep blue sea, faced with the prospect either of being turned out of his house in October or consenting to a repairing clause. The roof of this house


is leaking, the doors do not fit, and neither do the windows. The house is in a state of dilapidation and the tenant can incur an obligation to the extent of hundreds of pounds or be turned out. As many of us know, this is not an exceptional case.
When the tenant made a reasonable request to the landlord that before he consented to the lease the landlord should put the house in a proper condition of repair, the landlord's response was simply to give notice to quit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I have no doubt that that is repeated in the constituency experience of many hon. Members. The Minister has warned the landlords. He has said that the Government intend to do something, but he has not said what they propose to do. I am told that the right hon. Gentleman has called in the Law Officers of the Crown. When landlords hear that the Law Officers are being called in, I have no doubt that they are likely to be terrified!
What do the Government propose to do? It is said that they are suggesting that local authorities should be allowed to exercise the compulsory purchase powers which already exist under Section 97 of the Housing Act, 1957. If that is the Government's intention, it is quite inadequate to meet the present situation. That Section provides for a local authority resolution, Ministerial consent, and all the delay and palaver and expense of public advertisements in the newspaper, notices to all parties, objections which will take some weeks and then a local public inquiry, culminating after great expenditure and delay in a Ministerial Order. And this in the case of every house. Moreover, before this procedure has gone through, it will be October, and the tenant will be out. I take it that what we want to do is not so much to penalise the landlord as to protect the tenant.
This Bill proposes to give powers of acquisition, that is, to reintroduce, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the procedure for speedy acquisition which lapsed in 1951, and to give additional powers to local authorities to deal with this matter speedily, urgently and drastically as the only method to bring these recalcitrant landlords to book.
I am sure that all hon. Members will realise the seriousness of the problem If only a few thousand tenants are evicted next October, they will constitute a great sea of misery with which the House must deal. It is our job as a Parliament, and the Minister's job as a Minister, to curb the rapacity of these gentlemen. The Bill proposes to do precisely that. I am sure that the House, realising the seriousness of the problem and how much pain and misery it causes, will support the Bill as the only urgent action which can be taken to deal with these gentlemen, to bring pressure to bear upon them and to prevent both the evictions and the extortionate agreements which they exact.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I rise to oppose the Motion, and I hope to do so shortly and peacefully. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) has referred to a great deal of pain and misery. I should like to say to him at the start that many of these examples of pain and misery have been caused by our neglect of a problem which has grown over forty years. Successive Governments have shirked this problem, and the House of Commons has not been willing to bring sufficient pressure upon Governments to take effective action.
I say to my right hon. Friend, at any rate on behalf of those of us who sit on this side of the House, that not only do we give him our support but that we also admire the courage he has shown in tackling this problem, and the patience and good nature with which he has sustained a personal attack.
I hope that it will not be considered unreasonable to ask what leads the Opposition, for the fourth time, to bring a Motion of this kind before the House. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know that even if it were passed this afternoon, by accident, they would not be able to see either the Bill on the Statute Book or to achieve in this Parliament the repeal of the Rent Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to delve into the depths of their own Parliamentary experience for the answer.
I ask them to consider most carefully what will be the results of this campaign. May I say, first, that we on this side of the House would find it easier to take it


more seriously if they had put up some constructive alternative. I say on behalf of those who sit on this side—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."]—that it would appear that the Bill foreshadowed by this Motion will be one for municipalisation. We in this party would never regard that as an acceptable or practical solution to the problem we are called upon to face.
I hope that the House, and particularly those opposite, will consider the effect on various people of their persistence in bringing such Motions before the House. I ask them to think for a moment of the results on the landlord, the small landlord, in particular.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the poor tenants who are to be put on the streets?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has a voice which we all know very well. I hope he will listen to mine for a moment.
What is the effect on them of these constant political Motions and of this constant political campaign? I tell him and the House, without fear of contradiction, that many small landlords are now in the frame of mind to say, "I will get out of this business as soon as possible. I am not prepared to see my livelihood sunk in political quicksands."

Mr. Lewis: Ask the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). He knows that the landlords have been behaving in a shocking way.

Mr. Peyton: The small landlord is being driven by the conduct of the party opposite to sell his property with vacant possession as soon as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am saying, in other words, and I am expressing it as a view which I hold most strongly, that the party opposite, by its tactics are robbing the tenant of his opportunity—

Mr. Lewis: Tell them that in Hampstead. Thousands have received notices.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps it might also be reasonable to think what is the reaction of public opinion upon the House of Commons. The public now see the House of Commons seeking to frustrate its own procedures. A major Act of Parliament has been passed. We all know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree with it—[An HON. MEMBER: "So does the country."]—but I suggest that in this constant campaign, at any rate, in the sense of abusing our procedure, hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing but small service to Parliament.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Fight an Election on it.

Mr. Peyton: May I also ask hon. Members opposite to consider what is likely to be the effect upon themselves? Many people outside the House are coming to believe that the Opposition's policy and attitude on rents is dictated more by flippancy and opportunism than by other factors.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Stooge of the Tory Party.

Mr. John Hay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to call my hon. Friend a stooge?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what stooge means.

Mr. Peyton: May I conclude by saying to the hon. Members opposite that if they continue this campaign—[An HON. MEMBER: "Another one next week"] —they will come to be regarded not so much as the champions of a practical, coherent, alternative policy, but as pedlars of prejudice and hawkers of humbug. I hope that the House will reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 259.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[4.8 p.m.


Ainsley, J W.
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baird, J.
Beswick, Frank


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Blackburn, F.


Awbery, R. S.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Blenkinsop, A.




Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Janner, B.
Probert, A. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A, F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reeves, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, G. M,
Royle, C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, A. M.


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
McCann, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Donnelly, D. L.
MacDermot, Nial1
Sparks, J. A.


Dye, S.
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)




Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, W. (Consett)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T.


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Sylvester, G. O.


Foot, D. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mason, Roy
Thomson. George (Dundee, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Gooch, E. G.
Messer, Sir F.
Tomney, F.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Hale, Leslie
Moss, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Healey, Denis
Orbach, M.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regfs)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Owen, W. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Holmes, Horace
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Winterbottom, Richard


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.



Hunter, A. E.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pentland, N.
Mrs. Braddock and Mrs. Butler.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Sir Edward


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Barter, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Ball, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bryan, P.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bidgood, J. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Ashton, H.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Black, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Atkins, H. E.
Body, R. F.
Carr, Robert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Channon, Sir Henry


Baldwin, A. E.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Chichester-Clark, R.







Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, R. G.


Cole, Norman
Hurd, A. R.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Partridge, E.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Peel, W. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitman, I. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pott, H. P.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—North wood)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Joseph, Sir Keith
Profumo, J. D.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, D.
Ramsden, J. E.


Deedee, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, D. L. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kimball, M.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, P. M.
Robertson, Sir David


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lambton, Viscount
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. c. G,
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duthie, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)




Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, VV. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sharples, R. C.


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Forrest, G.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gammans, Lady
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glover, D.
McKibbin, Alan
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Godber, J. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sumner, w. D. M. (Orpington)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Cower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Temple, John M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Green, A.
Maddan, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gurden, Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, H. F. L.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mathew, R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wall, Patrick


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey
Webbe, Sir H.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Holt, A. F.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, H. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)



Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Mr. Hay and Mr. Gresham Cooke.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Osborne, C.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS

4.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move,

1.That the rates of national health service contributions be increased, by substituting the rates specified in the Table set out below for the rates set out in the First Schedule to the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.
2. That there be paid into the Exchequer any increase in the sums so payable under the said Act of 1957, being an increase attributable to the change in the rates of national health service contributions.
3. That it is expedient to make provision for other matters incidental or supplementary to the matters aforesaid.

TABLE


Description of person.
Weekly rate of Contribution.



s.
d.


1. Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment
1
10½


2. Employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
4½


3. Employed boys and girls under the age of 18…

10½


4. Employers … ……

5½


5. Self-employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment
2
2


6. Self-employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
8


7. Self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 …
1
2


8. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 …
2
2


9. Nan-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60
1
8


10. Non-employed bays and girls under the age of 18 …
1
2

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 18th February the Governments decision to increase the National

Health Service contribution payable weekly by all insured persons. The increase proposed is 6d, for men, 4d. for women and 2d. for juveniles, with, in each case, an additional 2d. from the employer in the case of employed persons. This will raise the total Health Service contribution in respect of an employed man to 2s. 4d., of which 1s. 10½d. will fall on the employee and 5½d. on the employer.

A Bill to give effect to this decision will be introduced in due course and will provide a full opportunity for debate. Since the Bill will provide for the payment of the increased contributions into the Exchequer, a Ways and Means Resolution is required and it is for that reason that the matter comes before the Committee this afternoon.

The receipts will, of course, be used for the exclusive benefit of the Health Service. From the inception of the Service, the larger part of the cost has been met from general taxation, but a substantial part is paid for by contributions and a small part by local rates. The contribution element had its origin in the Beveridge Report. Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, was of opinion that insured persons should not be relieved of the whole burden of contributing towards the cost of the comprehensive Health Service which he recommended in the Report. He wrote:
There is no obvious reason, apart from a desire to keep the insurance contribution as low as possible, why insured persons should be relieved of this burden wholly, in order that they may bear it as taxpayers. If importance attaches to preserving this contributory principle for cash benefit, it attaches also to contribution for medical treatment.

His proposals envisaged that a sum of 10d. in respect of an adult male employee should be included in the weekly contribution for the purpose of the Health Service.

When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last Tuesday, quoted the original estimate of the cost of the Health Service, The Times, in an otherwise helpful and constructive leader, described it as
a rather unworthy statistical debating point, since the figure he quoted was, in fact, a mere abstraction in terms of the pre-war price level.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Hear, hear.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) cheers, but in point of fact this was carrying impartiality to the point of inaccuracy.
What my right hon. Friend was quoting were, not the figures in the Beveridge Report, but the estimates contained in the Financial Memoranda which accompanied the original National Health Service Bills. The Government of the party opposite accepted fully the Beveridge recommendation that a substantial part of the cost of the Service should be borne by compulsory flat rate contributions. They estimated then that the gross cost of the Service would be £175 million. Of this the Exchequer would meet £126 millionthat is, 72½ per cent.—and nearly 21 per cent. would come from contributions. These were the proportions that, presumably, they felt to be right and fair.
As the Committee knows, the cost of the Service from the outset was far in excess of the sum estimated in the Financial Memoranda. In 1949–50—the first full year of the operation of the scheme—the cost was £450 million, of which £345 million fell to be met by the Exchequer. I suppose that it was partly because this was so much more than was envisaged in the Financial Memoranda and partly with a view to checking the demands on the Service that the Government, in 1949, took power to introduce charges for prescriptions. In 1950–51, they stated that the net amount provided in the Estimates —which was £393 million—was to be treated as a ceiling on the Exchequer cost and that total expenditure must not be allowed to rise above it.
A new element came into the finances of the Service when charges for services were first introduced by the Government of the party opposite, in 1951. That was with the express intention of keeping the National Health Service Estimates within the ceiling of £400 million imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition for the year 1951–52.
In spite of an extension of the charging system, the cost of the Service has never ceased to rise. Next year, 1958–59, the gross cost is estimated at £740 million. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out last Tuesday, this is over four times as much in money terms, and nearly three times

as much in real terms, as was originally contemplated.

Mr. John Baird: Hon. Members opposite always make the point that the cost of the Health Service is constantly rising. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the proportionate cost of the Service to the national income now as compared with five years ago? It is falling, not rising.

Mr. Simon: I am anxious not to give way too often, because many hon. Members wish to speak. Normally, I would always give way.
In answer to the hon. Member, I would say that the proportion that the cost of the Health Service bears to the national income has remained very steady for the last few years. It has barely varied, although it fell slightly as a result of the introduction of the charging system to which I have referred. Two things must be remembered in this connection. They really fall within the province of my right hon. Friend, but perhaps I may mention them. First, there are many other competing burdens upon the national income. For example, the present Government inherited a massive rearmament programme from the previous Government.
Secondly—and I speak with diffidence here, because this is so peculiarly within the province of my right hon. Friend—I wonder whether we are right to say that the proportion which the cost of the Service bears to the national income must necessarily be maintained. I should have thought that the whole idea of the Service is that with the growth of the prophylactic services that we have seen there will, in the end, be a real improvement in national health, with the result that the proportion spent upon the Health Service will fall.
I know that that argument commands the general approbation of the Committee. Already, with the use of wonderful new drugs in the treatment of tuberculosis, we have seen a fall in the number of beds that must be devoted to patients suffering from that disease. However, that is rather outside my province, and I ought not to be tempted to go further into the matter. Instead, I will return to my main point.
I was saying that next year the gross cost is estimated at £740 million, and that


that is nearly three times as much, in real terms, as was originally contemplated. Under present arrangements, £555 million, or 75 per cent. of this, would fall upon the Exchequer. That is £155 million more than the ceiling imposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and it represents a higher proportion of the total envisaged and thought right at the outset of the Service. Unless the Government were to take this increased load on the Exchequer there were three courses open to them: first, they could cut costs by reducing the Service; secondly, they could further extend the system of charges, thus both collecting revenue and discouraging use of the Service; and, thirdly, they could raise the contribution.
As to a cut in the total amount of money spent on the Service, it is possible that proper economies can be made, and I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health would welcome suggestions to that end. But it is not possible to save the sort of sums that we have in mind by mere administrative economies, however desirable they would be; it would mean reducing the scope of the benefits provided by the Service, or lowering their quality. I recognise that it would be mere profligacy to allow the burden of the Service to become greater than the economy can sustain without serious danger, but I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to blame the Government for having decided that a reduction in the services to those upon whom the hand of misfortune has fallen, sometimes grievously, would not be the best course to pursue in the circumstances.
Similar considerations led the Government to refrain from increasing the charges to patients. The sum which we had in mind can certainly be found with less hardship by those who are well and at work than by the sick or infirm. The Government therefore propose to increase the National Health Service contribution by the amounts that I have stated. On the assumption that the increase takes effect from early in July, it will yield about £24 million in the coming financial year, and bring the Exchequer's share of the cost down to £531 million, marginally less than the 72½ per cent. envisaged in 1946. The increase will mean that the contribution will cover 14 per cent. of the gross cost of the Service next year,

compared with the original 20 per cent. Even adding the charges payable by patients, it is still less than that original proportion.
I now turn to consider the criticisms of this proposal. First, it is said that this is regressive taxation. That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), when he said last Tuesday:
…the only person who now pays the contribution in full is the person who does not earn enough to pay Income Tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February. 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1047.]
The right hon. Gentleman meant that as it ranks as a deduction from income assessable to tax, therefore its full incidence comes only on the contributor who does not pay any Income Tax, whereas on higher incomes it operates to relief of the progressive burden of direct taxation. The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It does not work that way. It did so under the 1946 Act, the right hon. Gentleman's Act. That was the system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. Under that system of contribution—I repeat that it constituted a higher proportion of the total cost of the Service than we propose—the contribution was a regressive tax.
Since last year the Health Service contribution—in contrast to the pension element of the National Insurance contribution —does not operate as a deductible expense from income before assessing liability to tax. So, today, the Health Service contribution is considerably less regressive than it was under the 1946 scheme. It is a flat-rate impost.
It is said that the increased charges will still press disproportionately on the lower paid worker. That is inherent in any system of flat-rate contributions; it was so under the 1946 scheme. Indeed, it was more so, since the contribution, as I have said, then operated far more regressively than it does now. The right hon. Member for Llanelly put it another way. He said:
…his increase will be a substantial reduction in the standard of living of all the lower-paid workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1047.]
In reply, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer urged him to keep the matter in perspective.
The increase payable by an employed man is 6d. a week. That


must be viewed against average weekly earnings of £12 11s. 7d., on the latest figures just published. That is 10s. more than six months previously. The increase in National Health contributions since 1948 will be 1s. 2d. while average earnings are £5 10s. more than in 1948. Secondly, and even more important, when we are talking about the standard of living, we must look on both sides of the accounts. We must not only count the cost, but also the benefits.
Look at the difference in the Service since its inception. There are 27 per cent. more patients now being treated than in 1949. Waiting lists have been reduced; 6 per cent. more beds are now available; the hospital services have been improved; more research has been undertaken and more and better drugs are now available.
The benefit of all this improved medical service to the citizen can be measured in the years added to his life, in the reduced infant mortality, in the startling fall in the incidence of consumption and in a host of other ways which, I know, are so welcome to the Committee. But the point is that all this constitutes a rise, and not a fall, in the standard of living of the people.
The cost of the Service in real terms has increased threefold over what was originally envisaged. Of that increase only one-fifth is paid for by contributions or charges. About three-quarters is paid for out of general taxation, much of which is stringently progressive.
In the end it comes to this. Greatly improved benefits have been made available. They are to be paid for as to three-quarters by general taxation, much of which is progressive, and only as to one-fifth by charges and contributions. The contributions are by a flat-rate system no longer deductible against tax, and they bear a considerably smaller proportion to the total than was considered proper by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
In those circumstances, I respectfully submit to the Committee that our proposals are fair and justifiable.

4.36 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Last year, when we were discussing the provisions to introduce for

the first time a separate Health Service contribution, very grave fears were expressed from this side of the Committee that it was merely the beginning. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who has great knowledge of these matters, expressed clearly his fears about this being only the beginning, and from the provisions being put before us today it is evident that our fears were well founded.
We had from the Minister again today a quotation from the Beveridge Report suggesting that a substantial part of the cost of the National Health Service should come from contributions. During the previous debate we spent a long time discussing this point. In paragraph 287, Beveridge had this to say:
There is nothing sacred about the division suggested in this Report; it is no more than a basis for discussion and argument.…On behalf of insured persons it can be argued that even if the contribution proposed is within the capacity of most adult men, it is not within that of persons with low wages and that these should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer.
Even at that time there were grave doubts in the minds of Beveridge and his Committee about a flat-rate contribution and the repercussions it would have on the standard of living of the lowest-paid wage earners. The Report goes on:
…the rates of contribution proposed are even more provisional, for they depend on views of financial policy and social equity as to which reasonable men may differ.
There is no doubt that hon. Members in this Committee differ as to the rates of contribution.
We have had brought out once more that old bogey, the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he imposed a ceiling of £400 million. It was stated clearly at the time that that sum did not represent the ceiling for all time. It followed the war in Korea, which was supported by hon. Members opposite, a war that brought grave economic consequences for the people of this country. It was as a result of those grave economic consequences that the ceiling of £400 million was put on, but not as a ceiling for all time.

Mr. Baird: It still was not justified.

Miss Herbison: It might not have been justified, but I am dealing with the policy put forward by the Minister and


other hon. Members at that time and making clear the reasons for it, and the fact that it was not the ceiling for all time.
The Financial Secretary has said that when we called this a poll tax it was really a flat-rate contribution. In the debates on the National Health Service charge, and on the later Bill raising contributions by 2s., we pointed out that the time had come when we must go away from the flat-rate contribution. The Government have had plenty of time to bring forward a scheme of graded contributions, but so far they have not done so. The result is that every increase in the contribution has borne very heavily on the lowest-paid wage earners.
In September, 1957, people began to pay the increased contribution for the National Health Service. The Financial Secretary has not given us any clear evidence today why, a mere five months later, there should be another increase in the Health Service contribution. In those five months, the extra 2s. has been put upon the general contribution. In October, 1951, when Labour lost office, the contribution for an adult male was 5s. 1d. per week. The proposed increase puts it up to 9s. 11d., an increase of 95 per cent. under the present Government.
In the debate last year, as in the Minister's speech today, stress has been placed on the increase in the cost of the Service. The Supplementary Estimates for 1956–57 approach £9 million, of which more than £5¼ million goes to the Hospitals Revenue Account and more than £2¼ million to the pharmaceutical services. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham dealt very well with the increase in the cost of the hospital service in the debate last June. As to pharmaceutical services, are the Government really guarding the public purse in that matter?
I have taken the trouble to look at the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Over several years there has been a great deal of questioning by members of that Committee on the price of drugs. Only after two and a half years has a scheme been made between the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Government in the matter. Before the Public Accounts Committee, Sir John Hawton said that the Treasury

did not regard the scheme as one that it would have chosen.But the Government are ready to operate it. The scheme means that it has taken two and a half years to achieve a saving of £¾:; million out of a total bill of £22 million at that time.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: Is not the hon. Lady making a mistake when she says that Sir John Hawton was speaking for the Treasury? He has nothing to do with the Treasury.

Miss Herbison: Sir John Hawton was giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee and said that the Treasury was of the view which I have reported.
The scheme is to run for three years, during which time any new drug will have a free run and there will be no price control at all. When the Government are worried, as they pretend to be, about the rising cost of the Health Service, they ought to be much more firm with manufacturers of drugs. Hon. Members on the Public Accounts Committee did everything possible to bring these matters to the notice of the Government.

Mr. William Shepherd: What does the hon. Lady estimate would be saved,, irrespective of research considerations, if a rigorous policy were pursued against the suppliers of drugs?

Miss Herbison: It is impossible for me to say how much would be saved. The Government have been examining the matter for two-and-a-half years and the Treasury is not satisfied that there will be a sufficiently big saving from the scheme. This is one field in which the Government ought to give the most rigorous examination with a view to finding whether further savings can be made.
The Minister was asked what proportion of the national gross income was being used on the Health Service. We must have that figure, so as to get the matter into true perspective. The cost of the Service in 1950–51, the last year of the Labour Government was 3·9 per cent. of the gross national product. That figure had dropped by 1954–55 to 3·2 per cent. and it has gone up in 1956–57. Taking in the Supplementary Estimate, the figure is 3·44 per cent. In spite of the increase in the cost of the Health


Service, it takes today a smaller proportion of the national gross product than it took in 1950–51.
There was an interesting article in Sunday's Observer by Andrew Shonfield, the economic editor of the paper. He was talking about the estimates for 1957–58 that have been produced by the Government, and he said that they added up to slightly more than £5,000 million. He went on to say that that was £45 million more than the Government were spending in the current year and that the increase was entirely due to higher prices. He added:
The real volume of Government expenditure has once again fallen.…The State has, in fact, been taking a steadily diminishing share of the national income.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Miss Herbison: Of course, Government supporters will applaud this. They want to cut down the help that is given to people who are in the greatest need. There is no doubt about it.
I want to read further from this article and I advise Ministers to read it. It is worth their study. It went on:
Now, the impression is created by this kind of arithmetic "—
that is, the arithmetic of the division of the national income—
that the State absorbs rather more than a quarter of the resources of the community on its spendthrift activities. In fact, it means nothing of the sort. The proportion is a kind of arithmetical curiosity. For it includes all the money which the Government does not spend itself, but simply takes out of the pockets of one lot of people in order to put into the pockets of another lot. The National Insurance Fund is, of course, one of the main agencies for doing this sort of thing, but there are many other transfers of money in this category. For example, the many millions of pounds of interest on Government debt paid to Surtax payers, who have thus provided the cash in the first instance.
There are never any complaints and no jeering from hon. Members on the Government side when that sort of statement is made. In the last Budget, £34 million was given to Surtax payers and cheered by hon. Members opposite, but shortly afterwards there was the imposition of a charge for the Health Service. That seems clearly to show the whole philosophy of the Tory Government and the back benchers who support it.
On the Third Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill, last June, the Minister of Health said:
This is an attempt to provide the National Health Service with a stability of income which I would have thought hon. Members opposite who have held office would have welcomed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1957; Vol. 571, c. 1506.]
Where is the stability? In September, increased contributions began to be paid and in February, five months later, there is a further increase in contributions.
It is evident that the stability has gone with the wind, just as so many things affecting the well-being and welfare of our people have done. No wonder the Minister of Housing and Local Government is having such a difficult time. Security of tenure has gone. Employment in Scotland, England and Wales has gone with the wind. All these things affect the ordinary people and take away from security in housing and in employment.
Imposing this additional burden takes away any security that they might have in their standard of living. I say quite clearly to the Government that this additional contribution is a cruel poll tax. Of course, for the wealthy, another 6d. does not mean a thing; it does not mean that they or their families have to go without anything. For the lower-paid wage earners it will prove an intolerable burden. It is almost the last 'straw in the continual increases on contributions imposed by the present Government.
Have the Government had any negotiations with the T.U.C.? This matter affects millions of workers represented by the T.U.C. We should like to know from the Minister who is to reply to the debate whether there were any negotiations. I was honoured to be present at the 1957 Congress of the T.U.C. That Congress declared that it was opposed to special contributions imposed to finance the National Health Service. It was the first Congress held after the first separate contribution. Even before that, the T.U.C. had made it perfectly clear that it was opposed to off-loading on to contributions burdens which ought to be borne by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since the Government are always wishing the leaders of the trade unions to help them in their economic difficulties, did they discuss this matter


and get the views of the T.U.C.? The T.U.C. is very rightly worried over this matter.
Today, we were given by the Minister the average weekly earnings, but they do not mean a thing when it comes to considering a 6d. increase in contributions. What has to be considered is what the extra 6d. will mean to individual men and women and their families. The railway worker's basic wage is £7 7s. Od. a week. This extra contribution will mean that out of that basic wage he has to pay 6·75 per cent. of his income weekly. The basic wage of the agricultural worker is £7 10s. 0d. and he will have to pay 6·6 per cent. weekly. No one can tell me, or any hon. Member on this side of the Committee, that that is not taxation of the worst kind.
Women workers in the retail food trade have a minimum wage of £4 17s. 6d. a week. With the extra contribution hey will have to pay more than 8 per cent. of their income. Women in the jute industry—which under the Government has been badly hit, as was shown in yesterday's debate—will also have to pay over 8 per cent. of their income, in contributions. I had a letter given to me today by one of my hon. Friends. It came in the post this morning from a woman, and in it she says:
I live with an elderly aunt, an old-age pensioner, who does not draw any supplementary pension, being one of the old school. My wage is just over £5 10s. and out of that every week I have to pay 12s. 8d,, 5s. Income Tax and 7s. 8d. contribution. In July, it will be 13s. or more, with no question about how we manage …
I hope that the Minister of Health will listen to this, because this has to be set against the average wages we are continually told about. This is what is happening to an individual woman and she wants the Minister to know it. She says:
In July it will be 13s. or more, with no question about how we manage, and I am not the only one who feels bitter about the method of paying these increases. I work with many folks who wonder when or where this is going to end.
That is a question which was put in the debate last year.
Later, she says:
…7s. 8d. a week and no choice about it and then if you are unfortunate enough to be ill, you pay again for your medical treatment.

That is a woman with £5 10s. a week. She is not alone in this respect. Many women with £5 a week jobs are not only keeping themselves, but have an aged relative to look after. For them, 6d. a week is a very heavy increase.
I know that many hon. Friends want to speak and that this is to be a short debate. We shall be coming back to this subject soon, when the Bill comes before us. I ask the Minister whether he is the least concerned about the well-being of these people, the well-being of this woman, and many like her, who might have to add to the expense of the Health Service through the nervous results of worry. If the Government are really concerned about these people and about the children of low-paid wage earners they will forget to quote average earnings and take back this proposal.
If the Minister of Health has said to the Treasury that this is an imposition, I hope that the debate will give him added ammunition, because his job, as Minister, is to safeguard the health of the people. He ought to use all the economies he can, if they are good economies, but not to add further burdens on the people, particularly on the low-paid wage earners.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have enjoyed listening to both of the speeches that have set off this debate. I wish particularly to say what a pleasure it was to me to listen to my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary stressing for once the benefits, instead of the costs, of the Health Service. To the list of extra amenities that he said our citizens now enjoy, I should like to add extra district nurses, more home helps, more midwives—more of almost every medical amenity. I think that every hon. Member in this Committee welcomes that.
I also very much enjoyed the attractive speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). If I may say so, it was a pleasure to hear her emphasise the two things that seem to me to matter most in this sort of debate: first, the alternative method of paying, if the Opposition do not like our method; and, secondly, economies. I should like to dwell briefly on those two aspects.
We have heard that the Opposition, rather than increasing the contribution, would prefer a system of grading contributions. We have seen from the exercise that the Opposition have produced in their pension scheme how those would operate. It is absolutely true to say that it would relieve the lowest-paid earner of part of his contribution but, of course, as we all know, only at the expense of putting a heavier burden on those receiving bigger wages. That is a quite acceptable alternative.
I was sorry that the hon. Lady had to bring in what is now almost the King Charles's head of the Opposition—the Surtax relief of £34 million. If I may mix my metaphors, they seem to bring this in like a stage army. It is used to explain how a Socialist Government would finance the reimposition of subsidies for bread and milk, the reimposition, or rather, the removal or reduction of charges in the Health Service, and every other alteration they desire to make. It really will not do. They can use that £34 million only once. I am glad that the hon. Lady suggested as an alternative a graded contribution scheme.
The hon. Lady referred to an article by the financial editor of the Observer which advocated consideration of a social service budget in this country, as they have in many foreign countries. That is an interesting idea and one on which I think that hon. Members on both sides would welcome research. It might be possible for the Government to do some research on this but, failing that, there are such excellent bodies as P.E.P., and the Institute of Social and Economic Research, whose work we all respect. I would be delighted if they would turn their attention to these things.
I have four comments to make on social service budgets. The first is that we do, at present, manage to get a lot of tax for our social services, and for other Government purposes, relatively painlessly from smokers. I am a nonsmoker, and hasten to declare my interest, but if the non-smoker, who can, to that extent, avoid tax, has suddenly to pay more money from his wages to relieve the smoker, it would be a very sad look-out. After making that somewhat frivolous point, I now turn to a

pay-roll tax, and its effect on the whole of our structure of costs.
What would happen had we not only a sales tax, as some of us hope, but a social service tax on the whole range of commodities that people buy in the shops? It would alter the cost structure enormously. What are now relatively cheap things would become a burden, and an unnecessary strain on the budgets of households that now can avoid much taxation by keeping off smoking, drinking, going to cinemas, or doing anything that bears that particular tax.
The next point is whether, in any social service budget, there would be a differentiation in pay-roll contribution between, say, the bachelor, and the father of five children. If so, would the father of five children have to pay more, or less because of the size of his family—

Mr. A. Woodburn: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that our very scientific system of Income Tax deals with the very problems of which he speaks?

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman has answered his hon. Friend very effectively. It was the hon. Lady who suggested the idea of a social service budget put forward by the Observer. Personally, I do not think that it would carry us a step forward. I do not think that it would increase incentives or produce a penny more, but there are elements in the graded contributions that share some of the disabilities that I have mentioned, and that ought to be ventilated by detailed research.
The second category relates to economies. It is always easy to talk of economies, but nearly half the National Health Service cost consists of wages and no one wants to cut the salaries of doctors, nurses, dentists, and the rest. I think that the hon. Lady is on very dangerous ground in suggesting that there can be big economies in the drug bill. I defy her to do that without endangering the research on which the discovery and development of such things as the antibiotics depend. And how can we say how far economies there might affect the success of the good firms in producing new drugs? I suggest that my right hon. Friend has a huge field to explore by work study, as there is at least £100 million of National Health Service costs which are strictly non-medical.
Perhaps I may now touch on a point on which the hon. Lady misled the House. I refer to the perpetual complaint of the Opposition that the amount spent on medical services in proportion to our gross national product has fallen. We can all think of a number of things that we would like added to the National Health Service. If I mention the word "chiropody" hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would agree. But if the time comes when the Government can afford to allow the whole of the Health Service to expand as we all want it to, and to serve the country as much as we think it ought to do, and if, by that date, the gross national product has increased even more, the proportion that the Health Service cost bears to it will have fallen again—and a jolly good thing, too.
Apart from that, I say again that I have enjoyed both the speeches, but I thoroughly support the action of the Government in this matter.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to be able to join in the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) against this added burden on the lower-paid worker. No Government have such a record for rapid insurance changes as have the present Administration. We had 6d. last summer; we had 2s. in the autumn; now we have 6d. this winter, and I am wondering if there are other increases in store for the summer. Since 1951, the insurance contribution paid by the adult male worker has gone up from 5s. ld. to 9s. 11d.—an increase of 4s. 10d. This is a very long cry from the days when National Health Insurance was introduced by the Liberal Government, with the slogan "9d. for 4d." Insurance contributions for women have also been considerably increased.
I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has left the Chamber, as I want to examine one of his statements very closely. He said that the average earnings of a male worker are £12 a week. It is very unfair to base an argument on that average figure, when one can quote thousands of workers who are not earning as much as £10 a week. There are thousands of shop assistants, ware-housemen and packers, railwaymen, postmen, messengers and clerical workers in the Civil Service and local government

who are not earning £12 a week. The agricultural workers are certainly a long step from that average figure. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that there are very many who earn below the average he quoted, and that this extra charge will be an added burden.
As I have said, the contribution has gone up from 5s. 1d. to 9s. 11d. since 1951. I can imagine what would have been the remarks of hon. Members opposite if this rapid increase had occurred under a Labour Government. I therefore gladly join in the protest against this further burden on the lower-paid workers.
This extra insurance contribution is not imposed in order to improve the National Health Service. It is not designed to improve either the hospitals or any of the other medical services. We have already had the 1s. per item for prescription charges introduced by the present Government. Whereas under the Labour Government the contribution was 5s. 1d. per week, and there were at first no charges for surgical appliances, for teeth, glasses or prescriptions, under this Government, who are now increasing the insurance contribution to 9s. 11d., we also have these added charges. I therefore hope that we shall go into the Division Lobby tonight to vote against this proposal again to increase National Insurance charges.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I had hoped that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would by now have come to the conclusion that to stick to the original pattern of the National Health Service was not necessarily the proper thing to do. I should have thought that people who claim to be progressively minded would show a little more flexibility than do hon. Gentlemen opposite on these matters. I cannot see that there is anything sacred about preserving the original pattern of the contribution, and indeed we are not aiming to go as far as that. It may well be that when we devised this scheme, we were wrong. I think we probably were.
I think that nearly every other country in the world has chosen a method different from our own for financing the social services. For instance, France, Belgium, Austria and Mexico have chosen other methods. Is it really right,


in circumstances that change considerably, and where there is considerable falsification, to put it no higher, of the original estimate, to stick to the original concept concerning the finances of these services? Further, as the community enjoys continuously expanding and improving services, is it wrong that it should be called upon to make a larger contribution? I cannot see any reason why it should not. There is a principle inherent in the National Health Service, to which every hon. Member should direct his attention, and which can never be challenged. It is that the services must be made available to all persons in the community, irrespective of their standing. That is the principle. We are concerned that every individual in this society shall have this service at his disposal—nothing beyond that.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise the gravity of the stand they are taking. It is perfectly true that the amount of money taken by the Exchequer as a percentage of the national income has declined under a Tory administration, although sometimes, when I am listening to irate Tories, I feel that I must be wrong in my calculations. The amount of money taken by the Government is now reduced from well over 30 per cent. of the national income to 25 per cent.
It is still true that there is very heavy personal taxation, and that we have not yet been able to produce a truly deflationary Budget. These two statements are demonstrably true. There is still very heavy personal taxation, and a man earning £5,000 a year is still paying far too much in personal taxes. It is also true that no Chancellor of the Exchequer since the end of the war has produced a truly deflationary Budget.
In these circumstances, it seems to me most proper that we should reconsider the method by which we finance the National Health Service. I see no reason at all why the individual should not be called upon to pay a higher contribution. In fact, I think that my right hon. Friend is perhaps guilty of a little timidity. When I last spoke on this subject in June of last year, I expressed the view that it would not be unreasonable, and would not involve any hardship or strain upon the great majority of

people in the community, if we were to have contributions representing one-third of the total cost, and I stick to that view. I believe that, in the economic circumstances of this country, it would not be an unreasonable thing to ask people to pay one-third of the total cost—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Would the hon. Gentleman say what size of flat-rate contribution he would ask from the worker receiving £7 or £8 per week?

Mr. Shepherd: I am saying that I believe that it is not unreasonable that even the flat-rate worker, who takes home £7 or £8 a week, at the standard rate, which does not necessarily represent his earnings, should help to pay one-third of the cost. I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite always quote wage rates and never earnings rates, and I think that in dealing with this matter we must consider earnings, and not wage rates. Even if it is true—

Mr. Fraser: What flat-rate contribution has the hon. Gentleman in mind for a man or woman who earns £7 or £8 a week?

Mr. Shepherd: I certainly would impose a flat-rate contribution so that these contributions would represent one-third of the total cost, and I say that, admittedly, that would involve a heavy strain on the very lowest-paid workers —on the woman earning £5 per week. I agree about that, but I prefer that, in the case of the low-paid workers, some adjustment should be made rather than that the whole or a large part of financing the service should be put upon the Exchequer, for the reasons I have given. It is much better to tackle the case of the low-paid worker and work out some form or other rather than allow so much of this constantly increasing cost to be borne by the Exchequer.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think I ought to give way again.
I would make one other comment about contributions for the social services. We are now entering into discussions in connection with the Free Trade Area, and we are likely to find ourselves in very serious trouble with our friends on the Continent in respect of our social services finances. As hon. Members


know, on the Continent of Europe there is a very different system of financing the social services. For example, in France, it is roughly true that social service costs in one form or another to the employer and employee add about 50 per cent. to the wages bill. and nothing comes out of the Exchequer. In Italy, the situation is not very dissimilar, and in varying degrees this pattern applies almost over the whole Continent of Europe.
It is perfectly true that we are open to the accusation by members of the Free Trade Area that we are in fact subsidising our exports to them, because our goods are not bearing the direct cost of our social services, as theirs are. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will face this issue. It is not an argument which can be lightly set aside. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) smiles, but if he had to negotiate on this matter, he would not find it a smiling matter at all.
If one were a Frenchman today, having to pay up to 40 or 50 per cent. on his wages bill for the social services, and one were asked to allow the free entry of British goods, when almost the entire cost of the British social services is borne by the Exchequer, one would be tempted to say, "I am not meeting fair competition."
Therefore, I say that I welcome this change in the contributions, and I feel that, for the reasons I have already given, the Government may not yet have gone far enough. I think it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances to expect the people who use these services to pay one-third of their total cost.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: This has, so far, been a debate of short speeches, and I shall try to maintain the pattern. We are arguing about one short point, it seems to me, and this is the sort of debate which is carried on by cut and thrust across the Committee. I want to deal principally with points already made by hon. Members opposite.
I make the comment on what seemed to be the main proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that it is completely irresponsible for anyone to come here and say that one-third of the cost of the National Health Service

should be paid for by flat-rate contribution levied upon everybody, irrespective of earnings or family commitments, without there having been any consideration in detail of what the cost will be.
The hon. Member for Cheadle said, and I agree, that there is nothing sacred about the formula written into the National Health Service Act and the National Insurance Act. Of course not. There are, however, two principles which we on this side of the Committee regard as of fundamental importance. The first is that the services should be available to people according to their medical needs and not according to their personal ability to pay. That is why we are against the extension of the charges which have been made under the present Government. Secondly, the bills which have to be paid ought to be paid by people according to their ability to pay, better off people making a larger contribution. We are, therefore, against the flat-rate principle which is being extended by the Motion before us today.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary introduced the Motion, he said that the original proportion of the cost of the Health Service suggested in the Beveridge Report to be borne by the flat-rate contribution was higher than that now in force. My comment on that is that Beveridge envisaged also that the Exchequer should make a much bigger proportion of the contributions to the National Insurance Fund. We are not discussing the National Insurance Fund, Sir Gordon, and you would probably rule me out of order if I went into that, but, in their effect on the individual worker, these things are linked together, because the individual is concerned with how much he has to pay. The Trades Union Congress has, therefore, definitely taken the attitude that, on the National Insurance side first of all, the Exchequer should go back to paying one-fifth, the original proportion, and secondly, as regards the Health Services, there should not be this extension in the flat-rate contribution. It is worth mentioning in passing also, since Beveridge has been quoted, that Beveridge did not envisage the sort of direct charges which have been propressively introduced by the Government.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman to this extent, that it is better that the extra cost should be met by those


who are well and in work rather than by higher charges for treatment and appliances. The point that we then have to decide is how that extra cost shall be distributed. The result of Government policy in the last few months has been to put up the National Insurance contribution from 7s. 5d. to 9s. 11d, a week, an increase of about one-third. This has come about as a result of the policy adopted by the Government in regard to the National Insurance Act and the proposal before us today. We are, therefore, faced with a contribution of virtually 10s. a week, which is a very heavy burden indeed upon the railway worker, the agricultural worker, the shop assistant and other people in poorly paid jobs.
One of my hon. Friends quite rightly said that it is quite unfair to quote average earnings when we are discussing this topic. Millions of workers are earning below the average. It is unfair also to draw a distinction between earnings and wage rates. The implication always is that most people are earning more than their basic rate. There are, of course, millions who have no opportunity to earn above their basic rate, whose pay in the basic rate less these deductions. That is what they take home week by week. In any case, if people do earn more than their basic rate through overtime and so on, that is a special reward due to them for the sacrifice of their leisure. Therefore, the only fair thing to look at when discussing these matters is the basic rate which applies to a particular job.
We on this side of the Committee, and our party, are thinking in terms of the social services now, and we have in mind proposals for moving farther away from the flat-rate contribution. Our national superannuation scheme is designed on the basic principle that people should pay more if their earnings are more and they can afford to pay more.

Mr. Shepherd: That is not really the whole story. What the scheme says is that if people pay more they will get more. That is the essential difference between a fiat-rate scheme and a graduated scheme as it affects, on the one hand, pensions and, on the other hand, the National Health Service. We really must be fair about it.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I want to be fair. It is part of our scheme that the pension should be related to earnings, because we regard it as a good thing that there should not be too drastic a drop in a person's standard of life when he retires. There is also an evening out element in that the lower-paid people will receive a larger proportion of their average wage in their pension than the higher-paid people.

Mr. Shepherd: They would still get more.

Mr. Prentice: They will still get more, as the hon. Gentleman says. But one of the things bringing us to our conclusion is that we cannot go much further in forcing up the weekly rate paid by people for National Insurance benefits and, to some extent, for the National Health Service. There is a limit to which that can be pushed.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Why?

Mr. Prentice: There is a limit, because it is such a tremendous burden on the lower-paid worker, representing as it does such a large proportion of his earnings.

Mr. Fell: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is begging the question of economic circumstances. He is saying that there is a limit, but he is having regard only, in what he means by a limit, to the present salary scales and wage rates. That is most important.

Sir Frederick Messer: What is the point of that?

Mr. Prentice: We are glad to hear that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) talks of the need for higher earnings. What we say is that, in the foreseeable future, having regard to the sort of wages we expect people to receive, it would be an intolerable burden on the lowest-paid workers to push National Insurance contributions up sufficiently high to provide these pensions and other things we need to provide in the framework of our Welfare State. In fact, what the lowest-paid worker can afford to pay presents a limit on our advances in pensions and other aspects of the social services.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was speaking, there was a good deal of applause from the benches opposite when she reminded us that the State is now


spending a smaller percentage of our national income. We agree that Government spending should be reduced, provided that the reduction means real benefit to the people. If it represents the avoidance of waste, if it means ceasing to spend money on things which are undesirable or which could be avoided, we are as much in favour of reducing taxation as any one. Of course we are. But the Measure before the Committee now is not that sort of Measure. It does not effect any economy. It does not even reduce the Health Service; indeed, we are glad that it does not. What it does is to transfer the cost from the Exchequer to this flat-rate poll tax on everybody. That sort of saving is not the right sort of saving at all.
We must get our priorities right. This action is simply one of a series produced by the Government over a number of years, small niggling measures which add up to a redistribution of our national wealth. We were chided because we reminded the Committee of the relief to Surtax payers. It is all in the same tradition. It is a giving away, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, of concessions to people better off and an imposing of extra burdens on those least able to afford them. They add up to an application of the Tory philosophy, applied gradually—because they dare not apply it all at once—so as to redistribute the wealth of the country in favour of those whose interests they have at heart.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: Like the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), I will try to be very brief. I think that the proposals of the Government are sound and sensible. It is true, as has been said on the other side of the Committee, that the imposition of these small extra charges will not improve the service: they will simply help to pay for it. What I want to do in maybe six or seven minutes is to reply to some of the points made about the drug industry by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). The Opposition seem to have a bee in their bonnet about the drug industry. The suggestion is always being made that the drug bill is a major factor in the kind of problem we are discussing, whereas, in fact, I do not honestly believe that that is so.
I should like, without heat, to give a few facts and figures for the Committee to consider so that we may get this question in perspective. I have a small interest in this matter in that I do some advisory work for a pharmaceutical firm. If I did not, I would not know one-tenth as much as I do about this question. In a way, that may be an advantage.
First, it is often suggested that the price of drugs is a major factor, and the implication is that if the drug bill could be more stringently controlled some of these charges would not be necessary. That was the implication of the hon. Lady's criticisms of the industry. I should like the Committee to realise that the wholesale price of pharmaceutical products has been very steady indeed for the last ten years.
I am certain that it is safe to say that not one hon. Member opposite can think on the spur of the moment of one single article being manufactured in this country which has increased in price by only 6½ per cent. since June, 1949, which is the base taken by the Board of Trade for its wholesale price index. There are only two or three articles, goods or services which have gone up by so little. One of them is heavy linen. But one has to hunt for them in the Board of Trade Journal. The average increase is about 40 or 50 per cent. and some products have gone up by 100 per cent. or more since June, 1949. But the price of pharmaceutical products has risen by only 6·6 per cent. since June, 1949. The Committee must admit that that is a sizeable achievement, bearing in mind that some of the drugs which are used to an increasing extent these days are initially bound to be expensive because of the very high research costs.
Secondly, I feel that when these attacks are made the Committee should bear in mind that the pharmaceutical industry plays a valuable part in our export trade. I have not the figures in my head—I did not intend to speak today, otherwise I should have been armed with them, but, from memory, I would say that about £25 million to £30 million worth of medical and pharmaceutical products are exported every year, and about £11 million of this comes from the export of proprietary drugs. The hon. Lady did not specifically attack the proprietary drug industry, although many attacks


have been made on it from the Front Bench opposite.
Here again, when one looks at the facts one finds that well over one-half of the proprietary medicines are either cheaper or, at any rate, no more expensive than their standard equivalents. It is, therefore, unfair to make these constant attacks on the proprietary drug industry and on the manufacturers of proprietary drugs. I repeat that well over one-half of the proprietary medicines are cheaper or no more expensive than their standard equivalents. This is a fact.
Two inquiries have been made by the Ministry of Health, and the facts and figures are available for anyone who wishes to study them. This ought not to be a partisan question or a question of party politics.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: May I ask this question so that we may have the whole picture? In view of the fact that the National Health Service is such a big consumer of the goods to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring, may I ask whether he does not think the time has arrived for the Service to consider supplying its own proprietary medicine and producing its own supplies in the same way as the London County Council did in days gone by? I see no difference between providing such a service in exactly the same way as we have done for years and in providing, at the expense of public funds, the main medical research work upon which the National Health Service is based.

Colonel Beamish: That is a perfectly tenable point of view, and I concede it. I do not agree with it. I think that it is nonsense. I do not wish to be offensive and I know that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am. It is for this reason that I think that it is nonsense. All the evidence that I can find leads me to believe that, if one were to introduce State manufacture, drugs would be more expensive and research would be less efficient than at present. That is my view. I do not know of evidence from any country which leads me to believe that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one.
On the whole, the pharmaceutical industry is an efficient industry. It compares quite favourably with some of our main competitors. America is our largest

competitor, and Switzerland is a very large one. Also, Germany and some of the Scandinavian countries are quite important. On the whole, although the crushing burden of taxation has meant too little research, it is an efficient industry. I do not believe that, if the State were to intervene and go in for Government manufacture of drugs, it would do anybody any good at all. That is a matter of opinion, and I understand that there can be an honest difference of opinion.
What I wanted to do was to look very briefly indeed at one or two other matters, in particular the other side of the balance sheet. This was something to which my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred. He said that we must look at the benefits that we receive for what we pay.

Miss Herbison: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is leaving the question of drugs, may I put this to him? He seems to think that everything is as fair as it can be regarding prices. If he reads the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and the expression of opinion from the Treasury and the Ministry, he will find that the Treasury and the Ministry are far from satisfied that the prices of drugs are as low as they ought to be.

Colonel Beamish: That is true. Of course, I have read all the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee about this question. Frankly, I think that the Committee has shown a woeful lack of understanding of the problems of the industry. I am sorry that it has not called, as I believe it would be entitled to call, for expert evidence from people who work in the industry. I have read all the remarks about the industry. I honestly believe that the Committee has misunderstood the situation to a very considerable extent. I realise that the cost of drugs is a happy hunting ground for people who wish to make economies. At any rate, when one looks at the constant attacks made on the ever-rising drug bill, it would appear that it is.
I now come back to the other side of the balance sheet. Has anybody ever tried to make even the roughest calculation, in terms of millions of £s or even tens of millions of £s, of the enormous benefit to this country from the use of modern drugs? I am thinking of the


way in which formerly killing or crippling diseases, or diseases which put one off work for weeks or months, have been cured by the use of modern drugs. I am not an expert, and I do not pretend to be. The Committee will, therefore, forgive me if I make mistakes; but let us consider consumption.
Consider childbirth and the number of children who were stillborn in the old days in comparison with the very few nowadays. Look at the numbers of mothers who used to die when children were being born and how few die these days. Look at pneumonia, which nowadays is often cured at home within a few days, and pleurisy. When I was a boy at school, I was terrified of getting scarlet fever, because I was told that it would probably kill me. I have not heard of the disease for years.

Sir F. Messer: Preventive measures did that. Diseases have not been abolished by drugs.

Colonel Beamish: Drugs have had a great deal to do with it. In addition to the diseases I have mentioned, look at diabetes and tuberculosis. Look at what we are doing now with polio vaccines. Are we to have a great outcry from the party opposite that the price of drugs is soaring because so many children are being given vaccines against polio? Look at the way that we were able to try to control the recent outbreak of Asian 'flu by the use of modern drugs. The other side of the balance sheet runs into tens of millions of £s. This is not a party point. I may not have put it very well, because I am speaking on the spur of the moment, but the other side of the balance sheet is extremely important.
I would like my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to try to give us figures to show the rate at which hospital beds are turned over, if hon. Members understand what I mean. I am not talking about apple-pie beds. I mean the rate at which people go into hospital and how quickly they come out again.
I do not know what was the average length of stay in hospital ten or twenty years ago, because I cannot find the figures, but I should be willing to bet with anyone that the length of stay in hospital

is being reduced rapidly year by year. A very potent factor in this reduction has been the use of modern drugs. Whereas with many diseases people used to be put straight to bed in hospital, they are now treated at home by the use of modern drugs. This is something that must be put on the other side of the balance sheet if we are to have a fair picture of the whole question.
In the same way as hospital beds are being turned over so much more rapidly, hospital waiting lists are being reduced. One factor in this is the use of modern drugs. We must, therefore, look at the other side of the balance sheet before making attacks, which people sometimes may regard as rather irresponsible, on the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
I apologise to the Committee for going on rather longer than I intended—

Dr. Barnett Stross: Before the hon. and gallant Member sits down, as he has spoken so bravely about the pharmaceutical industry, he ought to make a full and proper claim and give a guess as to how much is saved in terms of money, if ever the things which he has described could fully be translated into money terms, and say frankly—he would not be without others who would agree with him—that he thinks that in this direction modern science has probably saved very much more than the total cost of the drug bill.

Colonel Beamish: That may well be so. It is an interesting question to look into, but I could not answer it now. It is the sort of question which all of us who are interested in this subject, quite outside party politics, should study very carefully indeed. I entirely agree with the hon. Member.
By the use of modern drugs, we have greatly increased human happiness. There is no doubt that production has been greatly increased, because people get back to work more quickly, and people are kept alive longer. As a result, we are all enjoying a higher standard of living than we otherwise would. That is part of the other side of the balance sheet which is apt to be overlooked.
I hope I have not introduced a party attitude. It was not my intention to do so. If I have, I apologise. I felt, however, that this was an angle which was sometimes overlooked and I hope


that when these attacks are made on the industry, all of us will bear in mind that there is another side to the balance sheet.
I am positive that there is no difference whatever between the two sides of the Committee in their desire to see the National Health Service improved. What it boils down to is that the Health Service, the cost of which is always going up, must be paid for somehow. There may be—there are—differences of opinion, not only between the two sides of the Committee, but inside the two parties, about how we should pay for the increasing cost. That is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. I am, however, sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North introduced the whole question of the unemployed, the Surtax payers and all that, into what is really a rather scientific debate. I believe that while we retain the flat-rate system, the proposals that the Government are now making are sensible and should have our support.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. John Baird: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish), I had not intended to speak this afternoon. I agree with much of what the hon. and gallant Member has said about the great contribution made by the drug industry to medicine in recent years. There are, however, two points I should like to take up.
The hon. and gallant Member said that the increase in the cost of drugs had been only 6½ per cent. over recent years.

Colonel Beamish: The wholesale prices.

Mr. Baird: The wholesale price of drugs has risen by only 6½ per cent. in recent years. I accept that figure. The Committee should, however, bear in mind when discussing this small increase that one of the major reasons for the smallness of the increase has been the large increase in demand for drugs under the National Health Service.

Colonel Beamish: Colonel Beamish indicated assent.

Mr. Baird: Production has gone up, and that has allowed the drug industry to keep prices down.
Secondly, I am open to correction, but I thought the hon. and gallant Member was wrong in saying that the cost of proprietary drugs was rather less than the cost of their equivalent. It is true that the cost of some proprietary drugs is less, but surely the hon. and gallant Member was referring to proprietary drugs under the National Health Service. I know that that is true, because if the cost of proprietary drugs is much higher than the cost of their equivalent, they are not allowed on the National Health Service E.C. list. That is, perhaps, why they are rather less in cost. Over the whole range of proprietary drugs—the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) will correct me if I am wrong—the cost of proprietary drugs is very much in excess of the cost of their equivalent. I am open to correction if I am wrong.

Sir Hugh Linstead: Can the hon. Member give an example of a proprietary drug which is excluded from the National Health Service?

Colonel Beamish: I do not think there are any, unless they are publicly advertised.

Sir H. Linstead: There is no proprietary drug of any kind, advertised or otherwise, which is excluded from the National Health Service.

Mr. Baird: I shall not argue about that, because I did not come prepared, but I was under the impression that there were quite a number of them. I said, however, that I was open to correction. I did not come with figures and I do not therefore press the point.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said that we must be flexible in our approach to the financing of the National Health Service, and I entirely agree with him, but if we are to consider any alternative method of financing the Health Service, it must be a more progressive and more efficient and equitable method than the present one. It was rather ridiculous to suggest, as did the hon. Member, that one-third of the cost of the Health Service might come out of a flat-rate contribution on earnings. That would amount to a very considerable sum indeed.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member is making the mistake of assuming that I intended to say that the present ratio of


contributions as between employers and employed should be maintained. Quite clearly, if one wants to ease the burden upon the lower-paid worker, one of the ways in which to do so would be to make the employer pay a much higher percentage of the contribution than he now pays.

Mr. Baird: Had the hon. Member said that at the beginning, it would have made a difference to his speech, but he said no such thing. He said that there should be a flat-rate contribution of one-third, which would mean £200 million, which would be ridiculous and unworkable in the financing of the Health Service.
I was glad to listen to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes talking about the great contribution made by the drug industry to the improved health of the people over recent years, and also to the Minister when he talked about how, over recent years, we have increased the number of hospital beds by something like 6 per cent. and how the waiting lists have been cut. He also spoke of new drugs which had been used. On the whole, he was saying that people were in much better health and living much longer now than they were in the past. That is exactly our case on this side of the Committee. That is why we introduced the National Health Service.
I do not want to start rubbing it in, but it is true that hon. Members opposite were not as enamoured of the National Health Service when we were fighting it through the House of Commons as they seem to be today. If it is true that the National Health Service has been one of the major contributors to improving the health of the people, it is cogent to argue that any cuts in the Service will reduce its efficiency and prevent that progress continuing, because any charges on the Service will be retrogressive and will hold it back. Therefore, we cannot justify these cuts and charges from that point of view.
During the Minister's speech,I asked him whether he would tell us about the proportion of the cost of the National Health Service to the gross national income. He hedged, but it is true that that proportion has been slightly less since the Tory Government came into power. We must face that fact. The Minister said that one reason for it was

that we had a large armaments programme. It may be true that the proportion of the national income devoted to the National Health Service must be cut because of the huge armament programme, but that is not an argument which I should like to put forward on a question of priorities.
Apart from that, the Minister also seemed to argue that a fixed proportion of the cost of the National Health Service should come out of the weekly contribution and out of the pay-packet. He seemed to suggest that the Government were carrying on a policy which we on this side of the Committee initiated. I was in the House of Commons when the National Health Service was introduced, and I took a considerable part in the debates. I say categorically that we had no intention that any fixed proportion of the weekly contributions should be devoted to the National Health Service, and we never envisaged a sliding scale whereby when the cost went up the weekly contribution should go up proportionately. This is art innovation which has been introduced by hon. Members opposite. We entirely disown it, and I hope that when we get back to Office we shall remove any tendency in that direction.
It was ridiculous that the Minister should attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) when he said that this proposal would hit the poorest of the community. My constituency is largely made up of working-class people, and it is no good going to them and arguing about the average weekly wage. A great many of them are railwaymen earning low wages. They are not worried about the national average, they are worried about their own wages, and for people on that low level of income this extra 6d. a week is a fairly considerable knock to their weekly budget.

Mr. Brian Harrison: My right hon. and learned Friend, in his reference to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), was concerned with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that
…the only person who now pays the contribution in full is the person who does not earn enough to pay Income Tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c 1047.]


That is not correct, and that was the point which my right hon. and learned Friend was making when he was criticising the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Baird: That was one aspect, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was also attacking my right hon. Friend on the main point of his argument that the poorest would be hit hardest.
This is not an equitable method of raising money for any national service. The only equitable method is by a system of tax on income. That is what we on this side of the Committee argue, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree. The Minister also said that we on this side of the Committee were the first to introduce a ceiling to the National Health Service and the first to introduce charges. It is true that we introduced a temporary ceiling and that we introduced charges.

Dr. Stross: Temporary charges.

Mr. Baird: It is also true that hon. Members opposite have increased these charges tremendously since they came into power. I was one of those who voted against both the ceiling and the charges. I hope that the majority of my party who accepted these charges, and even the temporary ceiling, have learned their lesson. They gave hon. Members opposite the excuse they wanted to impose much more repacious charges than we ever envisaged. I am glad that we on this side of the Committee intend to remove the charges when we come to power.

Dr. Stross: Does my hon. Friend remember that I moved an Amendment from what was then the Government side whereby all charges would cease in April, 1954, and that that Amendment was accepted?

Mr. Baird: That is true.
I want to try to answer the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who said that if we on this side of the Committee did not accept the Government's proposal we should say how we would raise money to finance the National Health Service. He said that we should have to accept further charges or place a ceiling on the Service or have further contributions.
I believe that the only way in which we can finance our growing social services is to look not only at the cost of the social services but at the whole of our national expenditure. I do not believe we can have expanding social services when we have at the same time the armaments bill that we have today. I do not believe that we can sustain N.A.T.O. and our commitments to it and at the same time oppose the Government when they suggest making charges on the National Health Service. I do not believe that we can expand these social services unless we can also increase the gross national product year after year as we did in the first year of the Labour Government. We cannot discuss the National Health Service in a vacuum, but only in relation to our international policy and our policy for planning our economy and increasing production.
I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends, as well as to right hon. Members opposite, that if we want expanding social services we must look again at all our commitments to N.A.T.O. and ask if we can afford them. We must face the need for a planned Socialist economy which will take us into an expanding system in which production will increase. Only in this way can we secure the finance to expand our health, education and other social services.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. R. P. Hornby: I am sure that everyone agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) when he said at the end of his speech that we cannot ignore the total cost of the Health Service. If we are to look at the total size of the bill we must look at it in the context of the rest of our national expenditure. I cannot go into the pros and cons of defence as against the social services in this debate, and we must deal with the subject in the context of present Government expenditure.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, like almost every hon. Member who has spoken from the benches opposite, made the point that in the present situation the money to meet the rise in the cost of the Health Service would have come more equitably from the taxpayer than from the contributor. I want to make two points on that.
The first is one which I tried to make in a debate on the social services, last


summer. It is that by comparison with every other country in Europe the contributor in Britain gets a very good deal for what he pays, even at the new figure. By and large, the contributor in this country, compared with France. Belgium or any other European country, is paying a smaller percentage of his earnings.
Secondly, he is getting more for it. Even allowing for the charges, about which hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained, for spectacles, for dental treatment, and so on, and which were imposed in many cases to limit the extravagant use of those services and not as a principle, the Health Service as we have it today is the admiration of Europe, and we are trying to sustain that comprehensive Service.
My next point is on the plea that taxation should carry this burden. We cannot ignore the economic effects of allowing the total tax bill to rise, and the view is held that the total tax bill is doing serious economic damage to the country. This damages not just one section of the community, but affects the prospect of employment, the prospect of sustaining defence and the prospect of maintaining the social services.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite still insist, in spite of what I have said, on allowing the increased cost of the Health Service to be carried by taxation, they must bear in mind one other point. It is that if we earmark that additional sum to the tax burden, by doing so we lessen the chances of expansion of other services. They may say that it is the Health Service which deserves expansion, which deserves the extra £24 million from the taxpayers' money more than any other service. I want them to think of the priorities in relation to the current year's expenditure. For instance, out of every £ of Government expenditure, for every 2s. ld. spent on health only 1s. 8d. goes on education. So, before they suggest earmarking this extra money for health out of the tax bill, are they certain that they want it for the Health Service rather than for some other service?
What I am trying to say is that we cannot necessarily accept the existing proportions as being the right ones. There is always room for flexibility. For example, immediately after the war parhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House would have said that housing was

priority No. 1. They may say next perhaps that health is the first priority, or education. We should not insist that the services should always be allowed to expand at exactly the same rate, because there may be a need to alter the priorities and switch resources from one to another.
I believe that the increased contribution was a better answer than either increased charges or reductions in the ser vice. I agree that there is hardship for the lowest-paid worker and that there is ground for considering whether the time has not come to look at all the problems involved in sliding scales of contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said, there are many difficulties that need to be examined closely. However, in spite of the hardship, increased contributions make more sense than increased charges, because the latter hit people when they are sick, whereas contributions are carried by people when they are well and working.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Gentleman is constantly referring to the alternative of increased charges or reductions in the standard of services. Is that the only alternative?

Mr. Hornby: The other alternative was the question of paying for this from taxation. I thought I had made the point that I do not think we can divorce this question from the total economic effects on the country of increased taxation. I feel that it would be extremely damaging to the economic health of the country and to our ability to carry the total bill if we moved in that direction.
I regard this, Sir Charles, as the right solution of the present problem, but I do not regard it as a final solution. This is a holding operation which leaves certain questions to be examined carefully. There are the questions of 'the sliding scale, what is a fair weekly contribution in proportion to earnings, whether there are any other methods, not yet devised, of limiting the extravagant use of the service, perhaps in pharmaceutical goods, and, also, whether there would be any sense in trying to earmark contributions to specific parts of the Service, so that people might understand what they were paying for by these contributions.
It is important that we should persuade people that this is not, and cannot be, a free Service in the sense that no one pays for it. The money must come from somewhere, and this has to be brought home to people. I believe that this is the right answer at the moment, but that the flat-rate contribution is as high as it can be for low-paid wage earners, and I therefore hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to tell us that they are investigating the question of social service payments, which is a subject worthy of research.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: This has been an interesting debate, because it has produced between both sides of the Committee agreement on certain essentials. It is now accepted on both sides that the National Health Service is here to stay and will continue to be national. Having accepted that, the Committee rightly then addressed itself to the problem of how it is to be paid for.
I was interested in what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I was unaware that in France, for instance, so much of their social services are borne as between the employer and the workman. This is the reverse of what we attempted to do when our service was introduced. After Sir William Beveridge had produced his Report, on which there were many discussions, the Government of the day decided that the Treasury must be responsible for the provision of the necessary finance for a Health Service. The fact that, in the beginning, £40 million was to come from insurance funds did not destroy the principle that the main responsibility for finance was to be on the Treasury.
Consequently, when that Act was followed by the National Insurance Bill, a comprehensive contribution was fixed. It was not a contribution for old-age pensions, not a contribution for unemployment with a separate contribution for health, but one contribution which entitled people to retirement pensions of 26s. a week at that time, to unemployment benefit of 26s. a week at that time, and which entitled them to sickness benefit of the same amount. There was

a uniformity of benefit and one comprehensive contribution.
My objection to the addition to the health contribution is based on my objection to any special contribution for health purposes. As soon as we identify a contribution with a particular aspect of the Service, then, as soon as we see its cost rise, we see the amount to be paid in a contribution rise. In this case, that means that the sick must pay for their sickness, a principle with which I disagree.
Some hon. Members have said that this is the only way out, because the alternative would be for it to be done through the medium of taxation. Is not this addition to the contribution which the people pay a taxation? The only difference is that this is inequitable, whereas if it were Income Tax it would be equitable. Here we get the same contribution paid by someone with a very small income as is paid by those who may be very wealthy and who will not notice 6d. a week.
The burden of an additional 6d. a week to the rich is obviously not comparable with that which may be borne by others. I feel that we may have now opened the door to a process by which, as the cost of the Service increases, there will be an addition not to other aspects of insurance, but only to this aspect.
I was very pleased to hear the Service commended for what it has done. You, Sir Charles, will never be able to measure in economic terms the value of this Service. That is impossible. How can increasing costs be avoided? We sometimes fail to realise what we are getting for our money. When the incidence of tuberculosis was steadily rising, and we were unable to get beds for our patients, we even had to pay very high prices for patients to be admitted to sanatoria in Switzerland. It is not merely a matter and food and drugs.
There is something to be paid for many other things which have contributed to the improvement in the health of the people. We do not now send patients to Switzerland. Indeed, we cancelled the contract and brought patients home. We reduced the number of patients in tuberculosis beds and, what is more, we have admitted into British hospitals patients from Malta. Those are things whose benefit is immeasurable.
I am not an economist or a financier, but I cannot understand why, if I am called upon to pay 6d. a week more for the Health Service, that is very different from being called upon to pay 6d. a week in Income Tax. I do not know why one should necessarily be a disadvantage and the other an advantage. Why should it be any different in its total effect? That has to be explained to me, ignorant as I am of high finance.
I oppose the increased charges because I believe the principle to be wholly wrong. I believe that the community as a whole ought to take responsibility for people while they are sick and pay for it by recognising that as a national obligation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am sorry to intervene at this stage, but it is desirable that in the general interests of the Committee hon. Members should leave the Chamber rather earlier than usual in view of the weather. There will be opportunities later to follow up these matters when the appropriate Bill comes before the House.
I was very glad to hear the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), whom we are always glad to hear in these debates and who always brings us to some sense of reality. Not only he but other hon. Members, I am glad to say, have stressed what we are getting for the cost of our National Health Service. That suggests the impossibility of talking about costs in this matter and the danger of using purely monetary terms in this way when we are all agreed about the enormous value of the Service and about the dangers which would flow from any restriction or diminution of it.
That is why one is always so disturbed when one hears proposals in purely financial terms. It is amazing that the Government have not attempted to justify these proposals. What justification do the Government have for raising an extra £24 million in the current year and the larger sum of £32 million in a full year? If there is a justification for raising the extra money, is this the way to do it?
The whole issue of what amount is required has been clouded by utterly misleading financial statements, firstly from

the Chancellor himself and then, I am sorry to say, from the Financial Secretary, who has, no doubt, inevitably caught on to the coat-tails of the Chancellor. We have been deluged with much misleading information, no doubt calculated to mislead not only hon. Members but the general public about the cost of the Service. That is a serious matter, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite are building an utter misconception in the country about the true cost of the Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) rightly mentioned the constant references to the original estimate in the Beveridge Report of £170 million as the cost of the National Health Service. How right The Tunes was in saying that it was misleading on the part of the Chancellor to refer to that figure. He should have referred to the first full year of the operation of the Service, 1949–50, which gave a figure of some £450 million. That is a gross figure of expenditure, and it is estimated that for 1957–58 it will have risen to £690 million. But a very large part of that figure is accounted for by the increase in the cost of living to which we have been subjected in this period. If we were to calculate the 1957–58 figure in terms of costs as they were running in 1949–50, we should get a figure of £515 million.
Why does not the Chancellor give us those figures so that we have a fair estimate of the problem we are facing? Over a period of eight years, there has been an increase of less than 15 per cent. Even then, the Guillebaud Committee, which went into the matter at some length, made a rather different calculation of the use of resources—many of us feel that it was much more accurate—and the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what the present figure is compared to that which was provided by the Guillebaud Committee in regard to the use of resources.
After further allowances have been made for the increase in the number of old people in our population and other increased pressures that the Service has inevitably had to bear, I am quite sure that we shall find that it is not costing more. In actual terms of cost, it is probably costing us less. I mention this because it is important to avoid getting caught up in mere money figures. I know


that we must start from them, but we must be able to understand them, and I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been purposely using them to confuse the general issue and give people the impression that the Service is costing vastly more than it really is.
The other misleading references concern the £40 million contribution towards the Service from the National Insurance Fund. There never was any understanding that there should be a fixed proportion, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. There was an acceptance of the figure at that time, but there was no suggestion that it should be altered so as to maintain a definite relationship with expenditure. This is another attempt by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to misrepresent the position.
Figures have been quoted showing the effect upon the earnings of workers, and many examples of average earnings have been given. Even the average earnings show how the National Insurance contribution as a whole has increased as a proportion, and has now risen quite considerably. But my hon. Friends are quite right in saying that we are not talking about average earnings; we are talking about the effect of these proposals upon the lower income groups. We are blamed for taking the basic rates, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to make sure that many working people are forced down to those basic rates, so they should be the last to complain that we are using those figures.
We are quite incapable of understanding precisely why the sum mentioned is required. The Chancellor has told us that we are to raise an extra £24 million. After considering all the figures that we have been given, we still do not see why the Government should require that sum for the coming year. We should like a full explanation. Even on the Government's own figures, the.sum required should be £9 million instead (of £24 million. That is surely a point which should be fully explained to us.
I now turn to the other matter which has naturally engaged the attention of many hon. Members. What is to be our attitude towards the way in which we raise funds for the Service? I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for

Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) suggesting that we were hidebound in some way. If he wants to talk about people being hidebound, he had better direct his criticism to the right hon. Gentlemen on his own Front Bench. Here, as the Opposition, we have been providing right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the last few years with all kinds of stimulating ideas and suggestions about the financing of National Insurance, especially in regard to superannuation. We have given them a great deal of encouragement.
We have even encouraged the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, although he has not yet been able to dig his way right through our proposals. We hope that he may be able to follow them at some time. He laughs, but he should be the last to laugh, because, in effect, he and the other Members of the Government are now accepting proposals for flat rate increases upon charges which everybody agrees are already past the maximum. I should have thought that he would be eager to present us with some form of alternative method of raising funds, certainly in regard to old people, if not in other respects. If the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of thinking up any fresh ideas, that is his look-out. It is apparently another example of the Government being incapable of bringing forward constructive ideas of their own and waiting until we produce something for them. We feel that it is high time that we took over the Government. We cannot go on giving them the benefit of our services and leaving them to act as the executive. The position is becoming ridiculous.
The two major questions that we have a right to ask have not been answered. First, why have the Government settled upon the figure of £24 million? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the mass of misleading figures which have been given in connection with the expenditure upon the Service. Perhaps he will tell the Committee the real cost. What are the latest figures, following those of the Guillebaud Committee? If this Committee were given this information, it would have a fair basis of comparison, year by year, instead of having to work upon what the right hon. Member himself must agree are misleading figures, which deal with the subject in crude, financial terms.
Secondly, what is the right method of raising the funds? We do not believe that the Government have chosen the right one. We say that we have now gone far beyond reasonable bounds in using the flat rate method. We cannot discuss the problem in isolation and without some regard to the other two increases which have been imposed in the last nine months. The right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Health discussed this question in the House only a relatively short time ago. May I say in parenthesis how glad we are to see him back in, I hope, good health.
It is astonishing that after such a short period we should be presented with not only another increase as far as the National Health Service is concerned, but also with a very much heavier increase for National Insurance purposes imposed under the Measure that we discussed in the House in November last. That means that we have had three increases within less than nine months. When one discusses this last increase of 6d., one must, of course, have in mind all the time the other two increases which have taken place.
I seemed to discern some anxiety on the part of hon. Members opposite about this. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) seemed to indicate that he, too, was anxious that the Government should undertake a proper review of the whole matter. We hope that such a review will take place. It is fantastic that, at the very time when the Government keep saying that they are anxious about the problem of costs and their relationship to wages, any extra burden at all should be added to the lower-paid worker with the inevitable consequence of its inclusion in new wage demands. Such wage demands are bound to follow, and as they come along they are bound to take into account not only this last increase of 6d. but the other increases which have already taken place.
The Government will not escape by calling the total 9s. 11d. It is rather like the bargain basement where one avoids putting the price into double figures because one thinks that it is psychologically better not to do so.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): It is actually better.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is 1d. better, but I am sure that every working man

in the country will regard the total payment as 10s., and, of course, he will be right. If the present Government stagger on for a few more months, who knows what other increases may be placed before us. Then, I suppose, the Government will try to keep the total sum within 20s.
I should have thought that impositions of this kind were bound to have a psychological as well as an economic effect upon workers in very many industries where wages are still low. I have in mind the bus drivers in my own City of Newcastle whose wage rate is around £8 15s. a week. In relation to that figure, 10s. is quite a considerable sum. These bus drivers are some of the people who are being told by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they have no right to make any fresh claim for higher wages. These men do a very responsible job, and I should have thought that it would be a very good thing if they did not have to work so much overtime in order to earn a living wage, if they had a reasonable basic wage and if their lives were not made much more difficult by this new proposed charge.
As I have said, I have no desire to continue the debate unnecessarily long at the moment, because we shall very soon have an opportunity of examining the fresh Bill which the Government will no doubt bring in. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that we on this side of the Committee wholly reject the Government's approach to the matter. We do not think that the Government have made any attempt to justify the Motion on the Order Paper, and we are satisfied that this kind of approach is bound to lead to greater hardship and to more numerous wage demands.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I think that the Committee will agree with me when I say that the quality of the speeches to which we have been privileged to listen so far this afternoon is a happy augury for interesting debates on the further stages of the Bill, assuming that, in a few minutes' time, the Committee passes this Motion in order to pave the way for the introduction of the Bill.
Perhaps I ought to say, at the outset, that, inevitably, there has been a good deal of reference today to matters going


beyond the National Health Service element and into the broader field of National Insurance contributions. A good many statements have been made and many statistics have been bandied about. I hope that it will not be assumed that any facts or statistics in this wider sphere of National Insurance contributions which I do not correct or comment upon are thereby accepted by the Government. It simply means that I regard it as more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to deal with those matters at a more appropriate time and in his own much more competent way.
At the end of this short but interesting debate, I think that I can, with confidence, commend the Motion to the Committee, but, be it said also, with some natural regret, because one must always have some regret when, for whatever good reason and in however good a cause, one asks one's fellow citizens to pay more money for the services they are receiving. Of course, it would be ideal if we could stabilise, or, still better, reduce, the total gross cost of the Health Service without any reduction in the Service or any detriment to the interests of the patient.
That would be the ideal position, because then the problem—and problem there undoubtedly is—of the burden on the Exchequer would be absorbed within the solution of the wider problem of the total cost. I should be lacking in frankness if I did not tell the Committee straight away that, at present, that happy and ideal solution is not within the realm of practicality.
I recognise that there is a very considerable interest in the country as a whole in the economics of the Health Service, and I hope, if I am fortunate in catching Mr. Speaker's eye on the Second Reading debate on the Bill, if such there be, to say something at perhaps a little more length on the general issue of the economics of the Service.
At present, it would perhaps suffice if I said, on that aspect of the matter, that we are persevering with the application of all proper measures of economy within the Health Service and with the search for new economies. Our search for new economies which can be put into effect

without detriment to the interest of the patient is unceasing and untiring.

Mr. Houghton: Are radiographers affected by those economies?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In the result, the Health Service, in whatever way one computes it—I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that there is some difficulty in translating these matters into the ordinary economic idiom —the Service is costing the country a lot of money. But I would say that for that money the country receives good value from the Service.
The gross cost, estimated for the financial year 1958–59 at £740 million, is, in fact, £31 million more than the estimated out-turn for the current financial year. I would add that that figure, albeit £31 million more than the estimated out-turn for this financial year, has been achieved only by the most vigorous pruning of the 1958–59 Estimates—that is to say, the most vigorous pruning within the formula which I have suggested, without detriment to the interests of the patient.
The additional money for which we are obliged to ask in the coming financial year is needed to meet the inescapable commitments of the Service. I should add that it would clearly be possible to reduce the gross cost by reducing services. Of course it would, but that would involve major alterations in the Service —for example, reductions in the work of hospitals or an increase in waiting lists, or even the excision of a particular part of the Service—dentistry, ophthalmics, or whatever it might be.
It is only by such bold, rough and sweeping measures that we could get the sort of economies in the Health Service that we are discussing today. If the Committee accepts, as I apprehend it does, that it is not at present possible to reduce, or even with certainty to stabilise, the gross cost of the Service, except by making some such unacceptable cuts as that, we must look to the pattern of the cost.
As hon. Members will know, the pattern of the financing of the Health Service is made up, in very disproportionate amounts, of five elements: the Exchequer element, the contribution


element, the charges on patients, and two other elements—rates and superannuation contributions. But, of course, those last two are very small and, taken together, have remained at a steady figure of 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. of the total over the years. I do not think that the Committee need trouble about those two.
We are concerned here with the three major elements. Therefore, the real question which we have to decide is simply this: is every increase in the total cost of the National Health Service to go automatically onto the Exchequer, or are those other two elements, contributions and charges, to share in the added burden and, if so, in what proportion should those two share?
So far as that last question is concerned, I do not think that I need detain the Committee for more than a moment or so, because there has been no suggestion that it would have been better to introduce an increase in charges. I mention it very shortly and parenthetically only for this reason, that there were various possibilities canvassed in the newspapers a few weeks ago as to what might happen in this respect. Some of them thought there might be an increase in prescription charges; others mentioned the possibility of hospital charges or even charges for doctors' visits. I am bound to say that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement on 18th February hon. Members opposite were very successful in disguising any relief they may have felt that these particular measures had not been resorted to.
The reason for our choice rests quite simply on the broad ground of principle that it is better to take, if take one must, from those who are earning and well rather from those who are anxious and sick. If one is not then going to cut the Service, and if one is not to impose a charge, one is back to the main question, whether there should be an unlimited liability on the Exchequer in respect of any increases in the gross cost of the Service. whatever may be the inflationary pressures on the economy and whatever may be the position of sterling. In my submission, it does not make sense, either from the point of view of the economy as a whole, or from the point of view of the Health Service, that the Exchequer should be asked to assume an unlimited liability.
Several hon. Members have referred to the Beveridge Report and to the 1946 pattern. I fully agree with all those hon. Members—the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and others—who have said that there is nothing permanent or rigid about the Beveridge pattern or the 1946 pattern. But they are interesting because they were accepted by the then Labour Government in 1946 and received general acquiescence in the immediate post-war period.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the Beveridge Report, with that happy selectivity of quotation with which we in this House are familiar, and I may supplement it in a moment. First, £170 million was to be the cost of the Health Service as estimated by Sir William Beveridge as he then was; £40 million was the estimated cost to be met by contributions as a whole; and £33 million was the estimated cost to insured persons only. In percentage terms, the insured persons would have paid 19 per cent. and the percentage to be borne on contributions would have been 23½ per cent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also quote the figures for the first full year of the Health Service? Why does he insist on going back to the very much respected Lord Beveridge, instead of dealing with the really practical issues?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am certainly coming to that. Surely the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of thinking that I would not fail to point out to the Committee the very great increase in cost when the Labour Party started to operate the scheme.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North quoted the passage from the Beveridge Report in which he properly said that there was nothing rigid about these estimates. Then she went on and read the passage in which he said that
the rates of contribution proposed are…provisional, for they depend on views of financial policy…as to which reasonable men may differ.
But she did not read the next sentence, which stated that,
as a whole, the division proposed between the three parties is not, on the face of it, unreasonable.
We start from the position that this was taken to be a reasonable pattern,


although not a rigid pattern, at the time of the inception of the Service. It is, of course, quite true, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has been good enough to remind the Committee, that that assumed Exchequer percentage was from the start greatly exceeded. But, in the meanwhile, the Beveridge figures were, broadly, incorporated into the Financial Memorandum annexed to the National Health Service Bill, 1946. When the Service came into operation it is quite true that the percentages were considerably different.
I have been asked to give the figures, and I will certainly do so. The figure envisaged for the Exchequer element in 1946 was 72·4 per cent. In 1949–50, the first complete year of the Service, the percentage was 76·3. By 1950–51, the percentage had risen to 80·9, at which time the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who then composed the Government, felt that it was time to call a halt. Before my right hon. Friend the then Minister introduced the 1957 Bill, the Exchequer percentage had again increased to 80·2. Had the figure of £555 million total Exchequer contribution remained, as it would do if this Motion were defeated today, the Exchequer contribution for 1958–59 would have been 75 per cent.
Our problem, simply, was: were we, in the light of this experience, to watch impassively the steady and inexorable mounting both of the Exchequer contribution and the percentage which it bore of the whole? Surely our duty was to take note of this trend of increasing Exchequer liability and ask whether it was either a favourable or healthy thing at a time of inflationary pressure, and of consequential danger to sterling.
We say that it was our duty to ask whether, if this pattern were left unamended, it was not in danger of becoming distorted. When I say "distorted" I mean not only deviation from the original pattern contemplated by Lord Beveridge in 1946, but, more important, deviation from the proper and prudent pattern from which alone social services in the conditions of today can hope to maintain their real strength and usefulness. We now propose this modest adjustment as a result of which, for the first time in the 10-year history of

the Health Service, the proportionate Exchequer burden is as low as was contemplated at the time of the inception of the Service. That is not something for which I apologise. That is a fact which I proclaim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) in an interesting speech, pointed out that the contributor in this country is getting a good bargain; a better bargain than the citizens of other countries, and better than he could have expected in the early days of the Service.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East spoke about real terms. There is now £80 million more being spent on the Service in real terms than in 1949–50, and £35 million more of Exchequer money going into it, in real terms. That, of course, is not an extravagant addition, because it is one for which we are getting the benefit of increased quality and efficiency. But it does lead to the conclusion that the contributor is getting a good bargain, for which we say he can, not unfairly, be asked to pay a little more. We shall have more opportunity to debate these figures at greater length in due course, but it is only a small amount.
My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the average wage earnings—I am taking provisional figures of earnings —were £12 1ls. 7d. Sixpence is 0·2 per cent. of that total.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Hunter rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: No; I am sorry that I cannot give way.
The whole ls. 100. National Health Serxice contribution is 0·75 per cent. of that figure. Similarly for women, 4d. is only 0·26 per cent. of the whole and the total contribution of 1s. 4½d. is only 1·06 per cent. So it is a fact that we are here dealing with very small, marginal amounts.
As I understand it, the case of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that more should be put on the taxpayer. But they must appreciate that many of the people who are not paying tax now would have been paying tax had the margins been left as they were when we had a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, the Opposition are in a tactical dilemma on this matter of the Health Service charges. They cannot be both consistent and right. If, from the


start, the Labour Party had said that, whatever the cost, it must all go on the taxpayer, then we could respect their consistency while doubting their wisdom. But that is exactly what most of them did not say. They said that there must be a ceiling to the Service. Now they try to get out of it and suggest a new form of the old nursery riddle, when is a ceiling not a ceiling?—the answer, presumably, being, when it rests only on the statements of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Mr. Blenkinsop rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has already pointed out that we shall have further opportunities to debate this matter.

Mr. W. Griffiths: On a point of order, Sir Charles. This is exempted business. The Government had a Motion on the Order Paper, which was carried earlier today,

to exempt the proceedings of this Committee from the Standing Order. Why, then, should not the Minister give way to my hon. Friend?

The Chairman: It is exempted business but I think that it is the wish of the Committee to come to a decision before 7 o'clock.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has pointed out that it would be convenient for the Committee to come to a conclusion and that we shall have an opportunity to debate this on a future occasion. I say that the Committee should now let us have this Motion in order to pave the way for a Bill which would not only add to the strength and stability of sterling, but give the National Health Service itself added security and greater safety.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 230.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, Sir Henry
Glover, D.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Godber, J. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Goodhart, Philip


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cooke, Robert
Gough, C. F. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, H. R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Ashton, H.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)


Atkins, H. E.
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Green, A.


Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Knox
Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Banks, Col. C.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Dance, J. C G.
Gurden, Harold


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Barter, John
D-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
du Cam, E. D. L.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Duncan, Sir James
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, W. S.
Hay, John


Black, C. W.
Eooles, Rt, Hon. Sir David
Heath, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Body, R. F.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,.N.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hesketh, R. F.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Forrest, G,
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Foster, John
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hope, Lord John


Bryan, P.
Freeth, Denzil
Hornby, R. P.


Bullus Wing Commander E. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gammans, Lady
Horobin, Sir Ian


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Carr, Robert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)




Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Howard, John (Test)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, R. C.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hund, A. R.
Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Mathew, R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Mawby, R. L.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Speir, R. M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gfn, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)




Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Neave, Airey
Storey, S.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nicholson, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kaberry, D.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Keegan, D.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'thi, E. &amp; Chr'oh)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kershaw, J. A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kimball, M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Kirk, P. M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Temple, John M.


Lagden, G. W.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lambton, Viscount
Page, R. G.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peel, W. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Leavey, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Leburn, W. G.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pott, H. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, J. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Rawlinson, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Redmayne, M.
Wall, Patrick


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ridsdale, J. E.
Webbe, Sir H.


McKibbin, Alan
Rippon, A. G. F.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeler)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Maclean, Sir Fl[...]zroy (Lancaster)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wood, Hon. R.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfieid, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Woollam, John Victor


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold



Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Oakshott and


Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Mr. Hughes-Young




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, H. J.


Baird, J.
Callaghan, L. J.
Diamond, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Carmichael, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Donnelly, D. L.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)


Benson, Sir George
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dye, S.


Beswick, Frank
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. c.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Blackburn, F.
Collick, P. H.(Birkenhead)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, A.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blyton, W. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Cronin, J. D.
Foot, D. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Boyd, T. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Brobkway, A. F,
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gibson, C. W.







Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon
Royle, C.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Skeffington, A. M.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hannan, W.
Mason, Roy
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Snow, J. W.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Sparks, J. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)
Stonehouse, John


Holman, p.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm S.)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moss, R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moyle, A.
Swingler, S. T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, F. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hunter, A. E.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, W. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Isaaos, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Padley, W. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Warbey, w. N.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; st. Prics, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parkin, B. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, T. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, N.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


King, Dr. H. M.
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Lawson, G. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Probers, A. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lewis, Arthur
Prootor, W. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lindgren, C. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Winterbottom, Richard


Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Logan, D. G.
Redhead, E. C.
Woof, R. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


McCann, J.
Reid, William
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


MacDermot, Niall
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.



McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


McGovern, J.

Mr. Short and Mr. Bowden.

Resolved,

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS

1. That the rates of national health service contributions be increased, by substituting the rates specified in the Table set out below for the rates set out in the First Schedule to the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.

2. That there be paid into the Exchequer any increase in the sums so payable under the said Act of 1957, being an increase attributable to the change in the rates of national health service contributions.

3. That it is expedient to make provision for other matters incidental or supplementary to the matters aforesaid.

TABLE


Description of person
Weekly rate of contribution



s.
d.


1. Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment
1
10½


2. Employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
4½


3. Employed boys and girls under the age of 18 

10½


4. Employers

5½


5. Self-employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment
2
2


6. Self-employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
8


7. Self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18
1
2


8. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 
2
2


9. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60
1
8


10. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18
1
2

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: It might be of some help to the House if I were to say a general word about the scope of the discussion on this Bill. The Bill deals almost entirely with British Railways, the railways of London Transport and the Commission's inland waterway under-takings and inland docks. There are no provisions in the Bill regarding the Commission's other docks and harbours, its hotels or omnibus undertakings, except for the mention in the Fourth Schedule of the piece of land it wants to acquire to build a canteen for bus workers. I do not think that small item would support a general debate on its omnibus services. Nor do I think a small amendment in regard to the pension fund for the staff of British Road Services, mentioned in Clause 31, would make relevant a general debate on the Commission's road services.
Fares and freight charges are not the ultimate responsibility of the Commission and could not be discussed on this Bill. However, I think the powers sought would support a general discussion on the administration of British Railways, the London Transport Executive, and the inland waterways and harbours of the Commission. With regard to wages, the House knows that these matters are now being discussed before the Railway Staffs National Tribunal and the Industrial Court. I hope the House will agree with me that it would be better that we should refrain from debating them on this Bill.

Major Sir Frank Markham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, With regard to your recent statement, may I ask whether Clause 31 would cover a general debate on all railway pensions?

Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. and gallant Member can relate it to the specific provisions of the Bill, I think that would be going too wide.

Sir F. Markham: My second point is this. Although you have ruled out wages and fares because they are under consideration by tribunals at the moment, would you permit a discussion upon the general question of the rating of railway premises?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is anything about rating in the Bill. Of course, there is the other point that a discussion of that sort would probably involve an alteration in the general law of rating, and we cannot amend a public Statute by means of a private Bill.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I want to refer to a special case, the proposal for a railway depot and marshalling yard between Carlisle and Gretna, details of which are set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. Although this is a particular case, it raises the general issue of the way in which the British Transport Commission conducts its negotiations for the acquisition of land.
I say at once that neither I nor my constituents affected have any desire to obstruct or impede any plans which the Commission can show to be in the national interest, but I want to ensure that the interests of landowners and farmers concerned are properly safeguarded and that their problems are fully appreciated. I also feel that in the national interest the Commission must prove that good agricultural land is not being needlessly acquired. With these objects in view, I shall put forward certain questions and make some suggestions.
I want to know why a new marshalling yard on the scale proposed is necessary at all. Would not modernisation of existing yards in Carlisle be sufficient? Can the Commission produce traffic figures to prove that these large-scale plans are really necessary? It may be that as evidence of that it will be able to give some estimate of its increased requirements for the future, but I should make it clear that some local opinion considers that the present weight of traffic does not justify these proposals. If such a yard is necessary, must it be sited on good agricultural land? Is not some other land available which has already been lost to agriculture?
So much for the more general points. I must now assume that these particular plans are to proceed and turn to the detailed proposals. In considering them, I want to give some examples where certain minor changes could be made which would seem to help the farmers concerned without damaging the main purpose of the British Transport Commission. In one case, a slight change in the proposed boundary would mean the acquisition of War Department land instead of farm land. The War Department land concerned is little used. This change would not only preserve good farm land, but would also save the Commission from having to meet a considerable claim from the farmer concerned. In another case, the proposed route of the railway runs very close to some farm buildings. This obviously increases the danger of fire. If that is necessary, of course it must be accepted, but would not a slight change in the route taking the line further away from the farms be possible?
Now I come to the general problem of severance of farms and loss of access to particular fields. I appreciate that the procedure for settling compensation in such cases is clearly set out in Clause 22. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but surely it is important to reduce to a minimum this splitting of farms and the isolation of individual fields. Again it would seem that a slight change in the boundaries as proposed could be made to take in some fields which would be isolated from their farms in exchange for others adjacent to farm buildings which are to be acquired. Equally, the present proposals would reduce some small farms to totally uneconomic units. In such cases, it would be much better to take the whole farm.
Of course, I accept that it is not possible to meet all individual cases where small boundary changes would minimise inconvenience and disturbance, but I hope that every effort will be made to meet reasonable proposals of this kind. So much harm is done if the Commission and its officials stand absolutely firm on original plans and make no effort to see the problem from the point of view of the small farmer or small landowner concerned. Yet all too often that is exactly what happens when land is acquired by public authorities. I hope it will not be


forgotten at any stage that if these plans must go forward some farmers will lose the basis of their livelihood and, therefore, deserve sympathetic treatment.
That brings me to compensation. Of course, I know that the Commission intends to pay proper compensation. I only want to stress certain cases where the loss likely to be suffered might be overlooked or brushed aside. In some areas, the present railway line passes through valuable woods. A fire break has always been left on either side of the railway. Even so, a serious fire occurs almost every two years.
Under the new plans, the fire breaks will be removed to increase the number of railway lines, and this will greatly increase the danger of fires in these woods. Nor am I impressed by the excuse usually put forward that there will be no danger in future because all trains will be dieselengined. That may be true of the future, but it is certainly not true of the present, or, indeed, even of the years immediately ahead. I therefore hope that this particular aspect will be taken into account when assessing compensation.
In another instance, the efficient working of an estate, and of some farms, requires constant transport over a railway level crossing. Even at present, this crossing is subject to serious delays at some times of the day. I understand that it is not intended to replace this level crossing with a bridge, and in that case the proposed extra line will make present delays even greater. This will cause serious inconvenience and add materially to the running costs of the estate and of the farms in circumstances which should not be disregarded.
I want to return briefly to the problems created by loss of access to particular fields. This can be a most serious matter for a farmer, and must be adequately compensated. I believe that in one case an effort is to be made to extend a cattle "creep," as it is called, to a length of 500 yards. It is certainly right to provide this, but I am very doubtful whether cattle would be prepared to face a dark tunnel like that. I doubt, therefore, whether such an arrangement can be considered adequate.
Lastly, I return to cases where the removal of land from small farmers would make the farms totally uneconomic. I

recognise that it may not always be possible to take the whole farm, but, where it is not, surely it must be accepted that the farmer concerned deserves compensation for the total loss of his holding. In such cases, it must not be forgotten that if the owner or tenant wishes to continue his living as a farmer, he must find another farm. The compensation should be sufficient to enable him to do so.
I hope that the Commission and its officials will realise that they are dealing in this case with reasonable and fair-minded people. If they can prove that their plans are in the national interest, they will not meet with obstruction or unreasonable objection. If they are prepared to consider suggestions and to make minor changes in their plans in a spirit of compromise, they will have generous co-operation. If they offer fair terms of compensation, they will not find their negotiations difficult. Therefore, if I can be assured that the Commission and its officials will approach these matters in such a reasonable spirit, I certainly will not further oppose the Bill.

7.26 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I have a constituency point that will take only a comparatively short time to deal with. It arises on Clause 13 (1, b), which provides that the Commission shall have power, in the City of Leicester, to
…"stop up and discontinue the footbridge adjoining the level crossing known as Forest Road crossing between Leicester (Belgrave Road) and Humberstone stations.
I am concerned with this provision on behalf of my constituents and, in particular, the 900 or so workpeople who work at seven factories in the immediate neighbourhood of this level crossing. I have also had complaints from owners of factories, and from the Leicestershire Footpath Association, a most admirable body whose job it is, of course, to look after the pedestrian, who may, I think, be compared in civil life with the foot slogger in the Army, and who always has to bear the brunt.
Their particular concern is that when the level crossing is closed it should be possible for people on foot to cross the railway. In the past, of course, there has been this footbridge, but the proposal is to do away with it. The people concerned are not at all unreasonable about it; they


are perfectly willing for the footbridge to go, provided, of course, that a pedestrian crossing is put in its place so that pedestrians would be held up for the minimum time when the ordinary gates across the road are closed.
There is no great dispute on the facts. The Commission's own letter admits that there have on occasions been delays of up to five minutes on this crossing. The number of people who use the footbridge is very small indeed. Perhaps that is not unnatural, as I believe that one of the reasons for wishing the footbridge to be closed is that it is not in good repair. And, of course, hope dies very slowly, even in those who are waiting at level crossings, and, naturally, they would rather wait at the crossing in the hope of the gates opening than climb the bridge. One is, therefore, little surprised at the small use made of the bridge.
The Commission, in this Bill, asks Parliament to do away with what is at present its liability to maintain the bridge so that pedestrians may cross the line even when the crossing gates are closed. It is Parliament's duty, and in this case, my duty in particular, to see that, as far as is in our power, the small man's interests are looked after on these occasions.
I have had correspondence with the Transport Commission about this matter, and, in particular, with Sir Brian Robertson. As one would expect from him personally, and, indeed, as one would expect from anybody in the very responsible public position that he holds, I have had from him every kind of courtesy and consideration. We have had a little argument by correspondence, and certainly the Transport Commission did not think that the provision of a pedestrian crossing was at all necessary.
On 10th February, I wrote to Sir Brian Robertson, and perhaps it would be of advantage just to mention this to see exactly where we stand. I wrote:
…"I am afraid I simply cannot agree with the conclusion that there is no need to provide a pedestrian crossing.
Parliament is being asked to confer on the Commission the advantage of being freed from the obligation of keeping up the bridge. I am informed that in return for this the Commission itself originally proposed to provide a pedestrian level crossing so as to reduce the inconvenience. Clearly, the cost of this would not be substantial. Although the bridge was not extensively used, the road is extensively

used by workmen and other pedestrians and they may well have preferred to wait in the hope that there would be no appreciable delay in opening the gates rather than climb over the bridge.
I have, in fact, received several complaints in the past about the length of time for which the gates have been closed to the inconvenience and annoyance of pedestrians. It seems to me that gates which are closed normally for two minutes but, on occasion, up to five minutes cannot be regarded as not causing inconvenience or justifying the provision of the pedestrian crossing.
I have had complaints of delays of more than twice the five minutes which has, on occasion, admittedly occurred. Sir Brian Robertson was good enough to reply on 20th February that it has been decided to withdraw Clause 13 (1, b) from the Bill in Committee, and, of course, I should like to have the Minister's observations about that.
Sir Brian Robertson intimated that, instead of proceeding by this Bill, the procedures laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, would be followed in order to get rid of the liability to keep the footbridge. Then he went on to say:
Further consideration has also been given to the question of providing a pedestrian crossing. should the removal of the bridge be authorised. Although the Commission still think that such a crossing is not really essential, they are nevertheless prepared to instal such a crossing subject to the necessary consent of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. Accordingly, any order sought by the Commission under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, would be on that basis.
As I understand, this is the position now. First, Clause 13 (1, b) will be withdrawn during the Committee stage, so that the Commission will not, in this Bill, ask for removal of the bridge. Secondly, the Commission accepts that, when the bridge is removed, a pedestrian crossing should be provided. Thirdly, the Commission intends to apply for the removal of the bridge under the National Parks Act procedure, but the application will be only on the basis that a pedestrian crossing is provided in place of the bridge.
I need hardly say that this attitude of the Commission will certainly be very much welcomed by my constituents. I should like to thank both the Commission and Sir Brian Robertson for the very considerate attitude which they have adopted to the representations made to them. I


should like to hear the Minister's observations on this matter, and, in particular, to know what the attitude of the Minister is likely to be towards the provision of a pedestrian crossing in place of the footbridge when an application is made under the National Parks Act.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The Bill before us, which is in familiar form, seeks approval for a number of major and minor works, one of which is in my own constituency of Ashford.
We accept the fact that these works are certainly useful and important and that all are indispensable; but it is not entirely works of this scale which at the moment are most deeply concerning the men who are employed in the great workshops operated by British Railways. I should like, within the Ruling which you have been good enough to give us, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on behalf of railway towns, such as my own of Ashford, in relation to the problems now arising from the British Railways reorganisation scheme.
Railway towns such as Ashford have for more than a century been centres of railway activity in this country, and the reorganisation and the works which British Railways are carrying out in connection with the reorganisation plan are casting over them a very long shadow. Indeed, they have cast a shadow for a long time. It is three years, I think, since this reorganisation was first announced by the British Transport Commission. I think I know enough about it at this stage to appreciate the problems of the Commission. Given even going, the kind of reorganisation which the Commission is seeking to undertake, on a much bigger scale than any proposal embodied in this Bill, would be a huge undertaking for the Commission, but it has not had even going. It has been subject, among other things, to the vicissitudes of our investment programme which are beyond the Commission's control.
The current transition involved by the movement from steam to other means is of course revolutionary in its effect on the old traditional railway towns. Steam has lasted us for a century. Now we are coming to the end of that epoch. For very many railway families it is the

end of a very long and very proud tradition. I do not think I have to tell my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I know is anxious about this matter and makes a special study of it, that some of our railway towns are like very large families. Generation succeeds generation and a very proud tradition of craftsmanship is passed on from one geneation to another. That tradition is not to be lightly disappointed, frustrated or cast away. It is not only a source of power and pride, but a source of wealth to this country, and indeed a source of wealth in any country which exports to any lands where railways are run.
It is accepted in Ashford, as I think in the other towns, that this transition from steam to electric and diesel is quite inevitable. No one is trying to put the clock back, but if it is to be successful, and if we are to retain the best in terms of manpower, skill and so on of the old regime, then it is a most difficult and delicate job, and I am not absolutely sure that that is appreciated as widely as it should be.
I do not know—I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to enlighten me later on—what will be the terms of the run-down in the Ashford railway works, where we know, at least in broad prospect, that the locomotive side must go within the next few years, but I will issue to my hon. Friend this warning which I think comes not only from my own town. This run-down of the men employed in the skilled work of locomotive construction and so on is not a matter which may much longer remain wholly within the control of the British Transport Commission.
It is very easy to talk about a phased programme, a phased run-down and so on. Who will wait until the last bell rings in the works? A good many, if they can, will seek and secure employment elsewhere, and it is in the nature of probability that the first to succeed will be the ablest and youngest and those whom British Railways can least spare. It will not only be a reduction in skilled manpower that the British Transport Commission will derive from this; it may also be—it could be—a serious dilution in the skill on which it counts.
Therefore, I would stress to my hon. Friend that it is very urgent that the


Commission, in the interests of this phase of its programme, and in the interests of the men and their families, should make the position plain as soon as it possibly can.
It is not a problem entirely of redundancy. There is, in most places, a transition to electrified railways. In my area, the Southern Region has in hand a major scheme of this kind. How many of those now making steam locomotives, who may be displaced, can be used in the future, after electrification? Last year, I had the opportunity of visiting some of the railway workshops in France where much of this transition from steam to electricity has already been gone through. One became aware there that, with preparation and anticipation, this transition can be carried out without too deep an effect upon the men and families employed.
It is apparent that, gradually, a large part of some premises of the Commission will become vacant when the steam locomotive side is closed down. What is to be the future of these premises? If the Commission wishes to sell, let, or in some way transfer part of its works to another business, may it do so? If so, when will it be allowed to do so? It is important that the terms of any arrangement which may be made—I believe that such an arrangement has already been made in one or two places—should be widely known so that industries which might be interested can take advantage. I have no doubt that these problems have been considered by the Commission, and I do not suggest that they have not. What I urge upon my hon. Friend is that it is time we heard something about the proposed solution.
There are two possibilities, I think. One can only speculate. One possibility is that the Commission, in the throes of its enormous reorganisation, has genuinely not decided all the local details, which would be quite understandable, and is not ready to announce them. The second possibility is that much has been decided, but there is a natural reluctance to break the news to the many men concerned. This would be a mistaken attitude to adopt. Definite news, even bad news, would be better than the inevitable rumour which runs riot in works among men speculating on their future in the British Railways reorganisation plans.
One of the Commission's disabilities in matters of this kind, in dealing with the men and families in the railway towns—I say this not unkindly—is that it tends to be rather inarticulate. It cannot speak aloud, as can some other businesses; often, it can speak only through my hon. Friend. We have found that, in matters affecting the reorganisation, it takes a very long time for local decisions to be settled and promulgated at the summit.
I do not think that it is fair that the Commission should be left to settle these matters alone. The services of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Labour, quite apart from the Ministry of Transport, will be needed in any major effort to supply alternative work for these men. I believe that there have been consultations, and it would be most useful if my hon. Friend could say something about any co-ordination, not only in Ashford but elsewhere, which may have been planned along these lines.
In fairness, I should like finally to say that, left to ourselves, we in Ashford could have gone some way, though not all the way, towards solving our own problem. Three years ago, when the Commission first announced that the reorganisation would be taking place, the great engineering firm of Rolls-Royce sought to bring a factory to the town, which would have taken much of the engineering labour which the Commission may now be able to dispense with. Rolls-Royce was not allowed to do what it had in mind, for two principal reasons, I believe. First, it was held that no more heavy industry should be encouraged to come to South-East England—I do not comment on that verdict, but that apparently was, at the time, the view taken—and, secondly, it was held that the importation to this railway town of skilled workers would upset the London County Council overspill scheme, which was to bring Londoners to the area.

Mr. James Harrison: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the disposal of premises owned by the British Transport Commission, and he suggests that Rolls-Royce was prevented or discouraged from coming to the town. Does he put that down to the influence of the Commission in any way?

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was in the Government.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Harrison) has misunderstood me. I was not referring to this within the context of what I said about the disposal of British Railways works premises. It goes without saying that Rolls-Royce proposed to build its own works. The company would have employed a number of engineers who would, in time, have been dispensed with by the Commission. Had Rolls-Royce been allowed to bring that factory to Ashford, the problem I am putting to my hon. Friend would not have arisen in the same way. There was no question of taking over British Railways premises. I think that it is fair to say that we could then have gone some way towards solving our difficulties. Higher authority denied us that particular solution. I consider now that some responsibility rests upon higher authority to deal in its own way with the situation which is arising.

7.46 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will forgive me if I do not follow him upon the wider issues, for I wish to raise what is purely a constituency point concerning the Glantwelly Crossing in Llanfihangel-ar-Arth. I hope very much that the Minister for Welsh Affairs has briefed the Parliamentary Secretary, among other things, in pronunciation.
This is an operational change proposed in my constituency which is strongly opposed by the local authorities concerned, including the county council. They oppose it on the ground of safety. The proposal is that a crossing which has hitherto been operated by a resident gatekeeper should, in future, be operated by train crews. This is not a matter of automation; far from it. In fact, I understand that the procedure will be that the fireman will be expected to get off the engine and open the gates for the train to go forward clear of the level crossing, and that then the guard will be expected to close the gates after the train has passed through. We really seem to be back in Stephenson's days, and all that is needed now is a man with a red flag.
The county council opposes the change because the gradient of the permanent way at this particular point is very steep, and it is feared that there is a real

danger of crashing the gates with a heavily loaded train. The authorities feel that this extra burden ought not to be imposed on the train crews. The British Transport Commission takes a totally different view, and it has come to the conclusion that the fears of the county council are unfounded.
The divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport visited the site, together with members of the local authorities concerned. The local authority representatives definitely formed the impression at that time that the divisional road engineer shared their fears. He seems to have changed his mind since, because the local authorities have been informed by the divisional road engineer himself that this method of working is already being operated satisfactorily on many branch lines, on routes which have a much heavier use than that at Glantwelly Crossing. The local authorities would be very interested to have from the Minister a little information about what caused the change of view on the part of the divisional road engineer.
The local authorities are supported in this matter by the unions concerned, which, after all, have a very special concern on behalf of their members. The local branch of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has made its point of view clear. It says that, even with the present arrangements, the gates have been crashed on two occasions. Further, it points out that if the schedule is to be kept, the train will have to move at a fair speed. Those are two very important points which should be taken into account by the Minister.
The last point I should like to make is that the Ministry of Transport has said that it is satisfied that the enginemen should have no difficulty in controlling a train of twenty-five vehicles. That is only a limited and qualified approval. In view of this, I hope that the Clause will be deleted. If it is to remain, I trust that the qualified approval of the Ministry will be taken into account. I hope that at least there will be an undertaking that the men who will be thrown out of work will be given alternative work and that the railwaymen's service book will be amended before the new system is introduced so that the maximum load is kept at twenty-five


vehicles. I assure the Minister that there is concern about this matter among the local authorities in the area.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I hope that this British Transport Commission Bill will lead to better administration of British Railways. I think it is true to say that they are over the hump now, at any rate, regarding the main line railways. There has been a great improvement in main line services, and considerable improvement in the inter-city services and on some of the suburban lines. I wish I could say the same about the administration of some of the services in the rural areas. It is almost true to say that here the British Transport Commission has given up hope.
The Commission has given up all effort to improve branch line services; it does not seem to be trying at all. The excuse it gives for adopting this defeatist attitude is that when the railways were nationalised it was laid down by Parliament that, taking one year with another, the Commission should pay its way. Therefore, the Transport Commission appeared to think that it was fully justified in withdrawing services all over the rural areas and making no real attempt to provide public transport facilities in those areas. I readily admit that it is never likely to make those services paying propositions. But I believe that it could make a very much better show in the rural areas if only it had the will.
At present, the Commission is pursuing a relentless and ruthless policy of withdrawing branch line services. There is not the slightest doubt that by pursuing this policy it is causing great injury to the countryside. I think that this policy would meet with less opposition and with greater understanding by the public in the areas concerned if only the Commission could demonstrate that it has made a real attempt to set these services on a sound basis. As far as I can see, it has not carried out any experiments, it has introduced no novel ideas, nor has it shown that there is no possible alternative to withdrawing services on a wholesale basis.
Of course, the Commission did drag its feet in regard to the introduction of twin-diesel units. It has now a number of these units in service, and they

are doing extremely well. They are attracting back traffic which had formerly been lost to the roads. But the Commission has been even less willing to consider the introduction of light-weight diesel units. The twin-diesel units are full of plush and chrome and cost about £25,000 a piece. They are expensive cars, suitable for inter-city traffic and suburban services; but for the remote rural areas we want something that is essentially cheap and simple in character —for instance, a light-weight diesel bus.
I have seen a recent report in the Press that the Transport Commission has taken delivery of about twenty of these new light-weight diesel units. I have seen no sign of the light-weight diesel unit operating in north-east England. I should like the Minister to tell us whether we have been allocated any of these new light-weight diesel units in the North. We ought in an area like that, where there are so many lines which would be suitable for employing these lightweight diesel units, to be entitled to experiment with some of them.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to one aspect of the administration of branch line railways, namely, whether on lines which have been closed to passenger traffic, but which are still open to goods traffic, it would not be possible to experiment with some of these light-weight diesel units. In my area of Northumberland, scarcely a day passes without a council passing a resolution drawing attention to the damaging effect on rural life that the deterioration in public transport is now causing. I know that the Minister has received many representations on this aspect of the problem in recent years. Northumberland is a sparsely populated area, and it is one of the areas where the problem of rural transport is most acute.
At present, a survey is being undertaken, in co-operation with the Minister, by research workers on behalf of the Northumberland Community Council to see what could be done to improve conditions and to see whether they are likely to deteriorate still further. I believe that the Minister will shortly receive the report of these research workers. I am told that it will be a gloomy document. It cannot be otherwise in view of the fact that continually over the past few years branch lines in that area have been closed


down and bus services have been withdrawn.
In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to the line known as the Border Counties line, which operates between Hawick in Roxburghshire and Hexham in Northumberland. The line in question is not a branch line but a through line. It is a useful alternative line between England and Scotland if the main line routes are blocked.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Like they are tonight.

Mr. Speir: It is possible that they will all be blocked on a night like this.
It is eighteen months since this line was closed to passenger traffic, but goods traffic still remains. Two main reasons were given by the Commission for withdrawing the passenger service on this line. First, it said that the line was not paying and that economies would result amounting to about £20,000 a year by closing this line to passenger traffic. Secondly, it said that owing to the floods in 1947, and again, I think, in 1955, the bridge across the Tyne near Hexham had been very badly damaged and that it would cost about £20,000 to repair it properly.
What exasperates the residents in the area is that since the line has been closed to passenger traffic they have seen very few economies introduced. The passenger trains have been withdrawn, but there is still a daily goods train. The permanent way is being fully maintained, the track in some instances has been renewed, the fences are being kept up and not one signal box has been closed. I believe that there are very nearly as many railway employees on this stretch of line today as there were before the line was closed to passenger traffic.
Furthermore, the line is still occasionally used for troop trains going to training areas in the neighbourhood. Surely, it is fair to argue that if the bridge, which is alleged to be weak and which undoubtedly is not in perfect condition, is strong enough to take fairly heavy goods and troop trains, it is strong enough to be used for a lightweight passenger diesel car. That is one of the reasons why I am urging that the Commission might well experiment to see whether with a lightweight diesel unit

it would not be possible to reintroduce a passenger service on this line.
Unfortunately, the Commission seems to lack the will. It seems to lack any drive or initiative for the rural services. I remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, however, that his Ministry is responsible for transport all over Britain, not only in the densely populated urban and suburban areas, but also in the remote areas. I ask him to look again at the North Tyne area, because I suggest that as an experiment we might for two or three months employ a light-weight diesel unit on this branch and keep and publish careful accounts of the incomings and the outgoings and then let the public see exactly what the situation is. If the light-weight diesel service really incurs a heavy additional loss, well and good; the service can then be legitimately withdrawn and we must try something else.
I hope the Commission's attitude to this proposal will not be entirely negative. Until now, its attitude in the rural areas has been far too negative. It is time that it was changed and changed before it is too late.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I appreciate the observations of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and his deep interest in transport facilities in the rural areas, but the hon. Member does not do his case any good in overpainting before the House or elsewhere the inefficiency or the lack of interest of the Transport Commission in the running of its branch lines and rural services.
The hon. Member knows—we all know —that before a branch line is closed, very careful consideration is given by the area transport users' consultative committee before any action is taken. When lines are closed, it is frequently because the local authorities and the people of whom the hon. Member has spoken did not use the facilities when they were provided. People prefer to travel by car and by bus. That is the difficulty which has arisen with the branch lines.
The hon. Member was, however, on a good case in pressing the Commission to experiment with the light-weight diesel vehicles.

Mr. Speir: When the proposals came before the various consultative committees, no light-weight diesel units were available and the Commission, therefore, was in no position to use them. The position today, however, is different.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member rather suggested that the Commission was showing no initiative in this direction. It is. indeed, showing initiative when, to use the hon. Member's own words, it has carried out research and has now taken about 20 of the light-weight diesel vehicles. This shows that the Commission is anxious to have the traffic.

Mr. Speir: It is about time.

Mr. Popplewell: As hon. Members must appreciate, there is some difficulty in keeping open a branch line for passenger as distinct from goods traffic. To keep a line safe for the public, it has to be maintained to a much better standard than when used only for goods traffic. That is a big factor in the minds of the Commission and of the consultative committee. It is on that point that I wish to make my observations tonight and particularly on the question of safety on the railways.
Sometimes when accidents occur, as in the case of the last two serious ones, which vividly grip the imagination of the people, we are inclined to get the picture out of proportion. I have with me some very interesting figures of rail accidents. If we consider the millions of passengers carried and the millions of engine miles run each year, it is remarkable how safe our railways really are. In 1956, I am told, there were 1,226 accidents on the railways. This is a very gratifying decrease from nine years previously, in 1947, when accidents totalled 1,388. This represents a steady fall in the accident rate, which speaks much for the growing efficiency.
No matter what we do with increased colour light working, with the automatic train control and with all our modern devices on the railways, the human element must arise at some point. It is interesting note that in the accidents which grip the public imagination most, there has been a decrease in the number of accidents attributable to engine drivers passing signals at danger from 89 in 1947 to 37 in 1956.That is a gratifying reduction.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from what the hon. Member is saying. Lest we be too complacent, however, would he not agree that it is necessary to set those figures against the fantastically good record of, for instance, the Great Western Railway before the war and its virtual freedom from serious accident for a very long period?

Mr. Popplewell: I am not comparing one system against another. The Great Western Railway was fairly free from acidents, but even with its safety devices the G.W.R. had some accidents. Do not, therefore, let us praise one railway against another in that way.
It is also interesting to note that the number of accidents consequent upon irregular block working by signalmen was only 14 for the whole of 1956, which is the last complete year for which I have statistics. That speaks very well indeed for the high standard of efficiency of these two most important sections of the railway community, the drivers and signalmen, particularly when we remember the mere pittance they receive as wages.
Other operating staff were responsible for 176 accidents in 1956, compared with 177 in 1947. That figure, therefore, remains fairly static.
It will be seen that the figures generally reveal that the human element was responsible in 1956 for 640 of the 1,226 accidents which took place. In noting these figures it should be remembered that the Transport Commission has faced many difficulties in recruiting staff to man various posts and that even first entrants into the railway service have some responsibility for the safety of operations. It is regrettable that wages in the industry are so low that the industry cannot always attract a better type of individual, though admittedly the staff position has improved recently.
There is, however, one very alarming increase in accidents to which I should like to draw special attention. It is the increase in the number of accidents caused by misconduct on the part of the public. In 1947, there were 157 accidents consequent upon such misconduct, but by last year that figure had gone up to 265, an increase of 108.
There has been steady increase in the number from this cause in the last three


years. I do not know what section of the public is responsible for it. In view of news of recent acts of hooliganism on their part, I suspect that hooligan students from the universities may be responsible for some of them. I also suspect that some were caused by teddy-boys coming back from football matches, or other sporting events, after consuming more "John Barleycorn" than they could carry.

Mr. D. Jones: My hon. Friend will remember that a Question was asked in the House recently about "debs" and "debs' delights" at Knightsbridge.

Mr. Popplewell: I suppose that the incident in which they were so difficult was included in the figure which I have quoted. It is necessary to emphasise this factor of public misconduct, because when the 108 accidents caused by that factor are deducted from the total number of 1,226 accidents in 1956, there is a remarkably improved figure compared with the 1,388 accidents in 1947.
One suspects that the Transport Commission has become a little too complacent and too satisfied with this wonderful accident-free record and has not shown sufficient energy in developing automatic train control. I do not apologise for raising the subject again. As the House knows, it is a pet subject of mine, to which I have referred on numerous occasions. It was gratifying to have a public statement from the Commission, about a fortnight ago, that at long last it had agreed to and had actually let a contract to go ahead with installing automatic change control between Kings Cross and York.
This is just one step in the right direction. The Great Western Railway had a similar system for a long time, but even automatic train control does not do away with the human element in the last analysis. Therefore, we should not place too much reliance on it. The Commission should devote more energy and drive to providing anything that will assist drivers to remain accident-free.
I wonder, however, whether the Commission is entirely to blame for the delay. It would be interesting to know how long after the Commission was fairly well satisfied with automatic train control, following experiments with the device

over a number of years, the Minister gave his assent and allowed the Commission to go ahead with it. I may be wrong, but I am told that the decision was kept in the archives of the Ministry of Transport for nearly two years before the Minister finally approved it. I hope that, tonight, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what is the exact position, because this is a very important matter.
I want to pay a compliment to the railway staff as a whole. Railwaymen are often "kicked around", but there is remarkable co-operation among the staff in their efforts to prevent accidents. There is a general desire within the trade unions to increase even still further the very high standard of efficiency on the railways. One would only wish that the co-operation within the Commission and the trade unions in discussing productivity and all measures to increase efficiency was always apparent on the departmental committee level and in the yard and on the shop floor. There is still need for considerable drive by the Commission in this respect in the lower levels of management, so as to secure an instant reaction from the management side when round-table discussions are held on these matters.
The men expect a positive and not a negative point of view from the management. I could quote a number of cases where decisions have not been taken at the local department committee level until after the lapse of many weeks. There is good will on the part of the Commission and the trade unions, but there is this difficulty at the lower level of managements. I hope that the Commission will make its presence felt at that level.
I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that in any credit restrictions or revision of investment there will be no interference with the all-clear for the modernisation programme. We know that the Minister has already stated that development will be spread over a longer period. I hope that that will be the last statement of that kind. The Commission itself is well ahead of schedule, and I hope that there will be no further directive from the Minister to slow down the modernisation proposals.
In terms of output and productivity, the railways have achieved wonderful


results. Many brick-bats are thrown in the House at railway people and at the Transport Commission, but a study of the increased productivity, measured in loaded engine miles per hour, wagon tons per hour, and wagon loads per hour shows that a good job of work is being done by British Railways. If, therefore, I have taken this opportunity to criticise some of the features of the Transport Commission's activities, it is only to let the Commission know that we in the House are fully alive to these matters. At the same time, I have been happy to take the opportunity to pay compliments to the Commission and to all the personnel who are engaged within the railway industry.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: First, I want to give my support to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) in what he said about the proposed works near Carlisle. I do not doubt that substantial improvements are necessary there, and I would not deny either that when a problem of that kind arises the plans of any authority, public or private, will arouse a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of those affected.
All the same, I feel that the public relations of the railways are not as good in that regard as they should be, and I am sure it is still possible to allay some of the local fears, and probably to reduce the area of land which it is sought to acquire. There is a feeling, for which I think there is some justification—as there often is where public authorities are concerned—that it is easier when making a public acquisition of land which will stir up trouble to get enough land so that it will not be necessary to experience the same trouble later if it is wished to expand. That is understandable, but where good agricultural land is concerned I am not sure that it is always justifiable.
It would also allay some of the misgivings if it were apparent that where land previously acquired is no longer needed British Railways were readier to give it up. There is much derelict land once used for railway purposes all over the country, and it would add to the confidence of rural communities if that land could be relinquished by the railways.
My next point hangs on the first, insofar as it has its origin in the public relations people centred in Barrow-in-Furness. I want to speak about the Lake District and not only for my own constituency but for the whole area. We have there one of the most important tourist areas in the British Isles, served by both main and branch lines. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) that there are many people who never use branch railway lines when these are running and yet are amongst the loudest objectors when there is any suggestion that those lines should be closed, which happens frequently, I wish that the railway authorities appeared to be more co-operative over branch lines in the Lake District.
It seems that they are considering these branch lines one at a time. Frequently, they put forward a good case to show not only that the lines are running at a loss but that it would be difficult to run them in any other way because traffic is decreasing. They put a convincing case to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. What I would like to see, and it is not yet too late, is a conference between British Railways and representatives of the three county councils concerned on the future planning of public transport in the Lake District, which is perhaps the most important dollar-earner among the tourist areas in these Islands.
It is not easy because, as I have said, three county councils are concerned, and some powers are delegated to a Lake District Planning Board. So it is a complicated pattern, but where there is a will there is a way. In this country, we have not the kind of organisation which includes tourist boards as found in other countries, so I feel that the industry most affected by local transport ought to be brought into such a discussion, too. It seems to me to be the commonsense way of dealing with traffic in that area, instead of considering these branch lines one at a time.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West said, that more and more people in rural areas prefer to travel by road. Lake District roads are narrow enough, and the opportunities for widening them are not very


good. At the same time we have there a number of branch services which could carry a great deal more traffic than they are doing at present. The question of advertising for traffic should be considered. There never seems to me to be the initiative in advertising for extra traffic, particularly Sunday traffic, from the Middlesbrough area, where one would expect to find a source of additional revenue, to the Lake District. This hardly appears to have been tapped, and so I ask the Minister to consider this question and to make representations to the British Transport Commission to see whether something cannot be done.
I have been told that where branch lines are running in competition with railway-owned bus companies it is not the policy of British Railways to try to attract additional traffic to the trains, but rather to leave it to those bus companies. If that is true, it is utterly unacceptable, and I would like the Minister when he replies to the debate to say that this is not the case.
My last point is on the question of the track. Would the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, from his great knowledge of railway matters, agree with me that one of the peculiarities of our railway construction, as compared with that of other countries of Western Europe, is that our track is laid as to 99 per cent. on softwood sleepers, whereas the railways of France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Italy are laid to a large extent on hardwood sleepers, and this is also the case with a large proportion of the railway tracks in America. I have always understood that their specifications are a great deal less than ours. In this country, we have hardly any resources of softwood, and nearly all our requirements for sleepers are imported, a large proportion coming from dollar countries.
In days gone by, our railway engineers were perfectionists, and softwood sleepers may have been thought, or proved, by them to be the best for their purpose. Those were the days before timber preservation. May I ask the Minister whether he considers that at this time we can afford to spend so much foreign and dollar currency on buying softwood timber for a specification which is higher than any other in the world,

and when we have an opportunity of laying 20 per cent. of our track with hardwood sleepers which could be found from sources within this country?
France, for example, still sells us its softwood and uses its hardwood on French lines. I am not suggesting that all our main lines should be laid with a material different from that used at present, but the timber trade says that we have 20 per cent. of British Railways' timber needs.
Some experiments were carried out at the Forest Products Research Laboratory about twenty years ago, but railways took very little interest. The last section of hardwood sleepers—in Kent—was lifted only a few weeks ago. If the preservation is carried out in a slightly different way, I think that second grade oak, elm or beech would be just as serviceable as the average imported softwood and would also save us a greal of foreign currency.
Under pressure, British Railways are now carrying out another experiment, and if that shows signs of being as successful as is hoped, will my hon. Friend see whether we cannot find a proportion of our sleepers from the resources in this country thus saving a substantial amount of foreign currency which we could so gladly spend on other things which we cannot possibly replace by substitutes found within these shores?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Horace E. Holmes: I want briefly to refer to a constituency matter affecting consultations or negotiations when proposals of this character are put forward. I refer to Work No. 18 and Work No. 19. I have no objection to either of those works, but reluctantly I have to raise an issue concerning them.
I am reluctant to do so because in my many contacts with the British Transport Commission I have always received courteous and prompt attention and I would be the last man in the world to want to make any complaint about the Commission. However, from correspondence with one of my constituents, it appears that the interested parties have been abruptly and arbitrarily treated by the local representatives of the Commission. It also appears that there have been no proper negotiations with the B.T.C.
These two works interfere with what is a partly-developed building site. I was led to believe, after having written to the Commission, that there would be consultation with the interested parties, but as recently as 23rd November I received a letter from one of my constituents which said:
We enclose herewith a document received today by registered post from the British Transport Commission from which it is observed that they are describing the land in question as rough land whereas this is building land.
That fact was pointed out from the beginning, and it can be seen easily from the plan that the land in question is building land.
The person concerned has been treated discourteously. Neither the person concerned nor I would for one moment want to stop or interefere with the two schemes, but at the same time we ought to be assured that in proposals of this nature there will he proper consultation so that the interested parties feel that they are getting something like justice and something like value. We are not asking for anything more than that. I hope that the Minister can assure me that, when proposals of this character are suggested, proper negotiations will take place with the people concerned.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I wish to start by paying a tribute to the Western Region, formerly known as the Great Western Railway. It is extremely efficient, and there is no question but that its excellent record of safety is second to none. However, there is much to be done to make our railways more efficient.
We all realise that, for various reasons, trains sometimes have to run late. I refer now to the main Birmingham line of the Western Region and to the Aynho Viaduct, which has had to be rebuilt, thus causing trains to run late. I have tried many times to get the stationmasters at Banbury and Leamington to give notice that trains will run late. People may have important business dates to keep. If they were told beforehand that trains would regularly run twenty or forty minutes late for a certain period—I am not speaking of occasions when trains run late because of fog or frost—they could then make arrangements accordingly. Notice beforehand should be given,

but that is not the practice at present. It is almost impossible to find out the position. If a person rings up a station he usually cannot get any information. He may be told that a train left Wolver-hampton five minutes late, but he cannot find out at what time it left Birmingham.
We all want to see some of the traffic taken back from the roads to the railways. That process is being discouraged because of the fantastic rail charges. I ought to declare an interest here. I was sent 1 cwt. of daffodil and narcissi bulbs to plant in my orchard. They were sent by passenger train by mistake and the charge was—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member cannot discuss fares and freight charges under the Bill.

Mr. Dance: I was merely going to say that the fare was more than the ordinary first-class passenger fare.
We agree that the railways must be given the extra powers allowed them by the Bill, but we want to see that they are run efficiently. Some time ago my constituents and I welcomed the idea of an increased salary for the top executives of nationalised industries, because we hoped that more efficient business people would be attracted into these industries. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen any change. I should like to see an immediate change in the executive of the British Transport Commission.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) was concerned about the lack of facilities for local passenger services. He might be interested to know that in my locality we have carried out a very successful experiment, between Nottingham and Derby. During the last three months, with only a very slight improvement of services and an adjustment of fares it has been possible for British Railways to attract considerable numbers of local passengers, to such an extent that the local bus services are up in arms and are appealing for powers to run still better bus services. That example could be followed successfully in many other rural areas.
I mention that as a word of comfort to people living in rural districts, and as something that might be followed up on other occasions, when we are not confined within the limits of the Bill.

Mr. Speir: That was with diesel services.

Mr. Harrison: No; it was without diesel services. Because of the initial success, however, a diesel service is to be introduced, so increasing the regularity of the service almost threefold during the 24 hours. Our successes to date warranted the Midland Region putting on diesels running almost every hour through the local towns and villages on the route between Nottingham and Derby. What we can do at present can, we believe, be done doubly efficiently with the additional facilities provided by the diesel service. I give that information as being useful and informative to people interested in these local services.
I am convinced that one of the most reasonable and achievable suggestions for decreasing the chaos on the roads is to do something about our waterways. The development of waterways is an economic proposition which could at very little cost relieve our roads immediately. My example of that is, of course, the conditions that have prevailed in recent years on the canalised portion of the River Trent.
I come now to that part of the Bill which refers to the closing of Haddiscoe Cut, which is being transferred to the river board. We are told in the Bill that the reason for the transfer to the river board of responsibility for the navigable cut is the absence of sufficient commercial traffic. I feel sure that I am completely in order, because I am now referring to a very important proposition in the Bill,
I wonder whether the British Transport Commission is really convinced that many of these navigable waterways are commercial propositions, when properly developed. I would draw the attention of the Commission to one of the best waterways in the country which has recently been developed and which, up to now, has proved commercially a going concern. In recent years, with the improvement of the type of power boat

on the canalised portion of the River Trent—a type of boat capable of pulling five or six barges, sometimes in face of a tide—traffic on that waterway has increased substantially. The waterway has been developed as a direct outlet to the sea and to the harbours.
The heavy traffic on the river could be multiplied many times if we utilised other waterways in a similar fashion. But we have here something that discourages us. We have here the disbandment of a navigable waterway and the throwing over of any possibility of future development of this cut as a navigable commercial waterway.
I hope that the Minister, even if he does not oppose this Clause of the Bill, will take the opportunity to give the Transport Commission a really good push and to tell it that a good many people feel that something more can be done to develop our navigable rivers and waterways.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish to comment on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) about the closure of branch lines. I do not dissent from a great deal of what my hon. Friend said, but I think that this is a subject on which we need to keep a very fair balance. We cannot expect the British Transport Commission to keep in being a whole set of branch lines based on the requirements of fifty or sixty years ago, before the advent of road haulage, private motor cars, and so on.
I think it is inevitable that in the course of time many of these lines will have to be closed. In our villages more and more people have motor cars, motor cycles and cycles, and the need for using branch lines has decreased. But the Transport Commission should make sure, at an early date, that proposals for the closure of branch lines are brought to the notice of the public clearly and forcibly so that people will be more easily satisfied that everything has been done to establish whether a line can or cannot be worked economically.
Recently, a line which runs through my constituency was closed. It runs through a place which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will know very well—Rudry, near Caerphilly.


It runs from Newport to Pontypridd. That was closed to passenger traffic. Whether rightly or wrongly, a mass of people wrote to me under the impression that that line had been closed with undue haste and that a proper effort had not been made to establish whether it could be used effectively and economically.
Any proposal of this kind should involve every effort to keep a particular branch line in use, either with a light diesel car, or with reduced services, or reduced overheads or a smaller staff. All those methods should be tried, and when the proposal is eventually made there should be shown the comparative accounts for the period when the line was used with the full apparatus of an ordinary train service, and for the period when a restricted service or a diesel service was run. Such accounts should be given the utmost publicity, so that the public in the area would be convinced that everything possible had been done.
The next point on which I want to comment is the feeling in South Wales—again, possibly misinformed, but, nevertheless, it is a conviction—that South Wales is not getting a fair share of the modernisation which has been embarked upon. We have evidence of a need for such modernisation in some parts of South Wales, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be able to include some reference to this in his remarks.
There are several favourite grounds of complaint. One which has been brought forcefully to my notice recently is the very poor passenger service between South Wales and Manchester. I have received innumerable complaints from persons who use this service, and I have used it myself. I know that it is intolerably slow. There is not one really fast train on that route. In the winter-time it is often very cold, and no reasonable preparations are made to provide refreshments for passengers. We do not ask for a restaurant car service on all trains, but we do expect that on such a service over such a distance there should at least be a buffet car to meet passengers' needs.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) rightly drew attention to the excellent safety record of British Railways. I think he will agree that if there is any particular public anxiety it is about the number of accidents which have occurred in fog condi-

tions. I should like, over and above the assurances which have been given already, an assurance that no effort will be spared in inquiring into the circumstances of these accidents which have taken place in fog.
I know that there has been a Ruling tonight about what can be discussed in this debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like to call attention—and I think this is a matter of major administration and not of a detailed freight charge—to the feeling in South Wales that there has been undue delay following the promise of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission to equalise the position of the South Wales ports vis-a-vis the Merseyside and London.
An unequivocal assurance was given a considerable time ago that the South Wales ports, which are a branch of the Transport Commission's activities, and the railways leading to them should enjoy fair competition; that people should use them on equal terms with the shipowners who operate on Merseyside and in London.

Mr. J. Harrison: Would the hon. Member add to his recommendation to the Minister to make inquiries about the cause of accidents during fogs a request that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary take a ride on a locomotive footplate during a fog?

Mr. Gower: It would be unfair for me to make such a condition, or prescribe what the Minister should do. I am anxious to discover the reasons for the accidents.
The Commission has promised to spend some money on the ports of Barry and Newport, but we are told that the work cannot be completed until July, 1959, at the earliest. The impression in Barry is that that date is far too remote, and that a much more determined effort should be made to complete the necessary port installations earlier. I do not expect an answer tonight, but I hope that my hon. Friend will examine this matter and use his influence to expedite the completion of this work.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I agree with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for


Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and I approve of his commendations of British Railways. Having travelled this country extensively for many years, I can confirm that there is a marked improvement in conditions. There are fires in the waiting rooms of the stations along the regular routes. This reveals a welcome return to humanism on the part of the Commission. There is an improved standard in the refreshment rooms and dining cars, and the courtesy of the staff of British Railways is as good as ever it was.
I know something of those responsible for the direction of British Railways. I know that were more capital available there would be a higher standard of wages. There will be no real improvement in the recruitment of the right men with a sense of mission regarding the running of our railways until we make the job worth while.
The Commission must not forget the importance of public relations. It is not enough for the legal department to send letters expressing a point of view about transactions over the purchase of property and such matters. Regard must be had for the imponderables of public relations. I have received complaints about the arbitrary attitude adopted in some correspondence from the legal department. The Commission is in the unique position of operating a service which covers the whole country, and it is vital that it should be on good neighbour terms with every locality. It is very wrong to lose the good will of the people with whom the Commission is in relationship when negotiating or consulting in respect of property, and so forth.
Clause 24 of the Bill provides for the extinction of certain private rights of way. Subsection (2) says that any person who suffers loss by the extinguishment of any right shall be compensated. That is all right, but it does not go the whole way. The question of closing private rights of way will come up from time to time. It is not enough for the Bill merely to say that anyone who suffers will receive compensation. These private rights of way were formerly under the control of farmers or landowners, and the control has been loosely exercised so that they have become very useful short

cuts for the people who live in the areas concerned.
I therefore ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to keep that point in mind. Closing of private rights of way may be technically or legally correct but they may, by practice, be very useful short cuts for the people. I hope that the Commission will see its way clear not merely to provide compensation but to provide local people with alternative short cuts. That is very important and should not be lost sight of.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I do not propose to come between him and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) on the subject of whether or not the British Transport Commission ought to run unremunerative branch lines. When the hon. Member referred to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly, Newport Railway, I was surprised to learn that the local people considered it was sufficiently needed. I have not lived in South Wales for nearly four years, but I knew what was proposed months before the railway was closed down.

Mr. Gower: It is felt that sufficient attempt was not made to run the railway on some other basis.

Mr. Jones: For my sins or virtues, I worked for a long time in close contact with the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway. Attempts were made for many years before it was closed to devise all sorts of schemes to make the railway pay. Finally, the Commission was forced, as it was in many other parts of the country, to close that branch line. It is no use hon. Members saying that the Commission ought to keep it open or to renew making branch lines if the cost of that is that the lowest paid railwaymen in the service have to work for seven guineas a week to do it. If the services cannot be made remunerative, that is not the responsibility of the Commission; it lies fairly and squarely on the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, who should provide the necessary finance to run services that are regarded as necessary.
I rose mainly to speak about the extraordinary story I heard from my noble


Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). This seems to be an entirely new feature of branch line work. Here is a branch line falling at a gradient of 1 in 105 from the main line junction to the crossing. The class of engine which works the train can haul up to 35 10-ton wagons of coal. It is no use the British Transport Commission telling us that the average length of the train is only 19 wagons, because the timetable provides that the class of engine used in the service can carry up to 35 10-ton loaded wagons of coal on a gradient of 1 in 100. The only brakes available for that train are the steam and hand brake on the engine and the hand brake on the brake van. When we have continuous braking on British Railways it might be perfectly easy for such a train to stop, but I do not know whether hon. Members appreciate exactly what is proposed in this case.
On this branch line, which has a gradient of 1 in 105, the gates are to be fixed across the railway leaving uninterrupted access to the road except when trains are approaching. The normal scheduled service on the branch line is two trains per day. They are goods trains; there are no passenger trains. Those gates are to be fixed across the railway, giving free access to vehicles and persons going over the crossing. The engine has to stop short of the crossing to enable the fireman to alight, walk forward and put the gates across the road. The train then moves across and again stops on the gradient of 1 in 105 in order that the guard may leave the brake van, walk back to the crossing, put the gates back, rejoin the van and proceed.
As my noble Friend pointed out, even under existing arrangements there have been two occasions when trains have overrun the mark and run into the crossing. What is to happen in foggy weather? Is that system still to be applied? How is road traffic to be warned that within a few minutes the gates are to be locked across the road? All this seems rather strange. The men who work the railway point out that the maximum load on this branch line is 35 vehicles. In the absence of an amendment to the working timetable and regulations, 35 wagons will remain the normal loading for these trains, if they are available. Let us not forget in this connection that there was a

celebrated case many years ago of Guard Richardson, of Chesterfield, who caused a strike on the railways because he insisted on carrying out regulations in defiance of an inspector's instructions. What is to happen if the Ministry of Transport says this train ought not to carry more than 25 vehicles and the working timetable remains at 35? Will the Ministry of Transport stand behind any guard who refuses to load at Carmarthen Junction with more than 25 vehicles, although he is asked by the inspector to load up to the maximum of his engine?
Those are some of the questions to which I suggest the Minister should reply before we agree to this kind of thing. How far is this to be carried? It is true that there are only four scheduled trains to pass over this branch line, but, if traffic should revive, it might be necessary to run six, seven, eight, or eleven trains.
In any case, if the Commission is permitted to get away with this when there are two trains each way each day, does the Ministry of Transport propose to impose any maximum on the number of trains that can pass over a branch line in these conditions? What efforts are to be made to make quite certain that road vehicles are not approaching this crossing at a fairly high speed when the fireman arrives to shift the gates from across the railway to across the road? What is to be the position in the event of an accident? I suggest that all those questions ought to be answered before the House allows this Clause to be incorporated in the Bill. It is a very serious matter.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: This annual Bill of the British Transport Commission gives the House the opportunity to raise a very large number of matters, mainly constituency ones, and serves the very useful purpose of calling to the Commission's attention subjects that cannot normally be aired in this House.
This evening, canals have hardly been mentioned at all, but I want to pay tribute to the Commission for the agreement reached with those hon. Members who, on previous occasions, had had reason to object to the Commission's proposals about the Haddiscoe New Cut. It was gratifying to learn that since this matter was first raised, in 1955, negotiations


have continued, and that a satisfactory arrangement has now been made whereby this section of the waterway from Norfolk to Lowestoft is to be kept open for amenity purposes. We ought to put on record our gratitude to the Commission for having made that arrangement.
I want to raise one or two issues larger than those so far mentioned—except in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). My hon. Friend referred to the danger of a retardation of the modernisation system. I, too, am fearful that the restrictions imposed on the Commission's capital investment are endangering that scheme, and making it well-nigh impossible for the Commission to fulfil the estimate published in the White Paper, "Proposals for the Railways," which indicated the Commission's hope of balancing its accounts by 1961 or, at latest, by 1962.
When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House, last November, the restrictions on capital investment, he stated that there would be some slowing down, but on the following day the Minister of Transport said that while the acceleration which the Commission had been able to bring about would not continue, the level of investment would not fall below the forecast in the Command Paper, and that no delay in the fulfilment of the programme as a whole would take place.
Then he stated, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that the slowing down would apply to the provision of main line diesel locomotives, to some diesel rail cars and, even more importance, to the fitting of continuous brakes to freight wagons. All these are essential to the fulfilment of the modernisation plan. Its success depends entirely upon their speedy provision. Unless this modern equipment is delivered, the Commission will not be in a position to hold its traffics, let alone to increase them—and in a moment or two I want to refer to the disastrous fall now taking place in some of British Railways traffics. Although, at first, the Minister denied that there would be any slowing down, he later had to admit that there would, and the Chairman of the Commission himself, in a public speech towards the end of last year, admitted that the

restrictions would seriously affect the programme of the Commission.
This is clear from figures which the Minister has given to me in reply to Parliamentary Questions. He has stated that the Commission is limited to a capital expenditure in each of the years, this year and next, of £170 million, or which £145 is on capital investment for British Railways. He has also given figures, provided by the Commission, showing that its planned expenditure on the accelerated programmme for 1958 was £151 million and, for 1959, £148 million. The £145 million permitted is, therefore, a decrease of £6 million this year and £3 million next year.
That may not appear to be very serious, but the Commission's modernisation plan, it has now been stated, is not to cost the £1,200 million which was originally estimated, but £1,500 million, an increase of 25 per cent. So, if the Commission's organal plans were to be fulfilled, and if the original estimated expenditure was to be undertaken today, it would cost overall an additional 25 per cent. On my reckoning, that means that if the original estimate of an expenditure of £135 million in 1958 and £140 million in 1959—that was before the acceleration —on the work which that money would have done was now to be fulfilled, it would require an expenditure of about £170 million in 1958 and £175 million in 1959.
This is very serious for the Commission, because it means that there will be a shortfall in capital investment to fulfil the plan today equivalent to the work represented by £25 million this year and £30 million next year. I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this inability on the part of the Commission, owing to capital restrictions, to fulfil this modernisation programme as speedily as intended will have very serious effects on it. Of course, what it means, in effect, is that, even if it continues at the present rate, two, three or more years in addition to the original estimate of fifteen years will pass before the plan is carried out. That prolongation of the plan puts off the date when the Commission will balance its accounts, and that is a very shortsighted policy on the part of the Government.
The Government themselves have now to find the money to meet the deficits


which British Railways are incurring and it means that they will have to go on finding the money to meet these deficits over a longer period, two or three years at least. The Commission, in the meantime, will not be able to gain the traffics which it is essential it should gain if it is to break even, and, of course, if the traffics are not gained now, they will be permanently lost. Further, as one of my hon. Friends points out, there is not only the accumulated deficit over a longer period, but the interest on it will have to be paid. Of course, in the long run, it will be quite impossible for the Commission to pay back these huge amounts.
What is so serious to the Commission is that this plan was considered as a whole, and if some of the Commission's orders have to be cut down, such as for diesel locomotives or electric locomotives, while the overhead electrification scheme continues, the whole programme is thrown out of phase. This is very serious. The time at the Commission's disposal is really short, if it is to save itself from bankruptcy, and I am afraid that that time is running out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West referred to the need for automatic train control and expressed the hope that its introduction would not in any way be held up as a result of capital restrictions. I endorse that hope. It is urgent that automatic train control be proceeded with as speedily as possible, and that it be given absolute priority within the modernisation plan. I say that not because the railways have not an extremely fine record of safety.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, British Railways stand very high indeed in that respect; they have a very fine record. The fact remains, however, that, because of the recent tragic accidents, two in very rapid succession, which occurred in dense fog, there has, understandably, been some public apprehension about safety on the railways. People have wondered whether everything possible is being done to ensure safety when running in unusual circumstances, that is to say, in extremely had weather, particularly during dense fog, when the signals are obscured.
After the second accident had occurred, I asked the Minister whether he would set up an inquiry into the operation of

the railways during dense fog. I asked that not because I considered that British Railways were not doing all that they thought necessary, but because I thought that an inquiry might allay public fears about safety on the railways. I quite understand why the Minister decided not to take any action until the inquiry into the particular accidents had taken place, but I hope that he has not ruled it out completely.
I have received a considerable amount of correspondence from present and former railwaymen in connection with railway operations during foggy weather, and I should like to quote from a letter from a retired signalman who worked in the Southern Region. He suggests that, under the new colour light signalling system, while working is absolutely safe in good weather, during foggy weather train drivers experience considerable difficulty. He says:
Any train driver is lost as soon as he leaves a station in dense fog. With signals, automatic or manual, he must creep along on observing a caution signal, distant or amber, until he finds a bridge, hut or other familiar object. It is useless for him to look out at the track, for all sleepers are alike. Whether Aspect or A.T.C. signalling is installed, the official decision is that no fog signal men are employed, but neither signalmen nor train men like this non-employment of fog signal men. I claim that the most important part of the fog signal man's duty is that he, the fog man, does know where he is and can readily reply to the driver's anxious query when the train has been stopped by the explosion of detonators.
He goes on further in that vein.
It seems that the elimination of fog-men and detonators now, where there is automatic signalling, is something which might be reconsidered, not because they are essential but because they can be regarded as an extra precaution. After all, the human element comes into train operation, and an extra precaution may well make the difference between accident or no accident.
I suggest that it might be as well. following the reports of the other inquiry on the last accident and in view of the findings following the accident at Lewisham—where it is suggested that the human element was concerned—to have another look at train operations during the periods of dense fog, to help the railwaymen themselves to show that they are doing all they can and to allay the fears of the public.
I referred earlier to the disappointing traffic which British Railways are experiencing at present, particularly freight. Traffic has been extremely poor, particularly in recent weeks, but there has been a downward trend for some time. The last four-weekly period in 1956 would be a time when there was still petrol rationing and the railways received, as it were, a bonus, albeit a small bonus. If one takes a longer period and compares it with a few years ago, one is appalled at the decline in freight traffic.
If the four-week period to December last is compared with the same period in 1953—during which period there has been an increase in production—it is found that the carriage of merchandise alone has fallen by 1 million tons, which is a fall of no less than 25 per cent., and that the carrying of coal has fallen by 1,150,000 tons, which is a fall of 8 per cent. The production of coal since 1953 has increased. Therefore, one would not have expected this heavy traffic to decline, but that British Railways would have been able to hold this traffic and that it would not have been diverted to the road or other means of transport. If one takes an even longer period of 16 weeks to the end of December last, again there is an appalling decline when compared with previous years. There was a decline of 4 million tons in traffic originating in this period compared with 1953.
This is a most disappointing picture and one which cannot but give very considerable concern to all responsible for operating the railways and to the community in view of the fact that they are now bearing the deficits which result. One cause of this is the acute competition from road transport. A reason for that competition and the success it is enjoying in attracting traffic from the railways is because the rules of the road are not kept by a great number of road hauliers. It is most unfortunate that these small operators are ignoring the statutory requirements and are operating their vehicles and employing their workmen for longer hours than is permitted under the statutes, and, consequently, being able to cut their charges and take traffic from the railways.
I have frequently raised in the House the question of the enforcement of statutory requirements for road haulage, and

the Minister is appointing more officers. In the transport commercial Press, any week, cases are reported of the infringement of the law regarding the keeping of records and working hours, and convictions obtained. For the number of convictions, any driver on the road knows full well that there are far many more where prosecutions have not been brought.
Equally difficult for the railways is the competition as a result of the steady increase in C licensed road vehicles. I shall not go into the question whether they should be controlled or not, but, with a decline in general traffic, the C licensee is known to be abusing his licence and to be carrying goods for hire or reward, thereby taking traffic from the railways. I do not know how the railways will hold their own or increase their traffic to enable them to break even unless they are permitted to go ahead far more quickly with their modernisation plan.
One final point which I should like to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is the question of pilfering on the railways. Allegations were brought to me by someone formerly employed in the police department of the Transport Commission concerning the pilfering which was taking place and the failure of the Commission to institute a system to reduce it or to bring it to an end. I have looked into this matter. While I do not think that the allegations as they were made to me can be fully substantiated, there is here a case for the Parliamentary Secretary to make inquiries of the Commission to see whether it has carried out as speedily as it could the plan that was suggested and which the Commission accepted.
When it was decided that Marylebone goods station was to be opened for the concentration of transit parcels traffic across London, it was proposed that there should be a London cross-town cartage scheme. All goods in transit were to be moved from one terminus or receiving station to another in special vans, which would be specially marked so that they could be easily identified by the police. If they were seen being unloaded anywhere in London except at the railway termini or receiving stations, it would be known that they were being illegally


used. It was considered that the marking of the vans to make them easily identifiable would facilitate police checks upon them and that the considerable amount of pilfering which was taking place would be reduced.
The scheme was evolved in 1951 at the time when it was proposed to reopen the Marylebone goods station and concentrate traffic there. Unfortunately, however, I understand that the scheme has not yet been fully implemented. It involved the construction of 200 special trailers marked with a zebra pattern for identification and the acquisition of 100 mechanical horse units to haul them. More than half of these vehicles, however, are not generally in use and they are stored at the Marylebone goods yard.
It seems most unfortunate that if pilfering is on such a large scale, and the scheme was suggested and accepted as far back as 1951, it has not been put fully into force and the money which has been expended on the vehicles and the special equipment associated with them has been tied up and, in a sense, wasted.
I do not know whether the facts are entirely correct. It is only because they have been put to me that I feel they should be looked into. I understand that in the event, pilfering has declined considerably during recent years. After the war, the extent of pilfering on the railways was over £1 million a year.

Mr. J. Harrison: And everywhere else, too.

Mr. Davies: And everywhere else, too.
From the figures I have seen, it is not the railwaymen who are mainly responsible for the pilfering. I do not for one moment suggest that they are responsible for it. The large numbers of prosecutions and the convictions which have been obtained show that only a percentage is due to railwaymen, and that the vast majority of pilfering is the responsibility of the public. The public is the guilty party. It is true that this pilfering has declined very substantially, but if this scheme, which is considered to be foolproof, were put fully into effect it would decline still further.
I end as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, by paying tribute to the Commission on the progress it has made and the efficiency

with which it operates its various undertakings. Figures published in its monthly and three monthly statistics show that that efficiency steadily increases. This is clue to the staff, from those at the top to those in the lowest grades.
There is a loyal staff working in difficult circumstances and sometimes in the face of provocation by the Government in the matter of decisions on wages and other things. The staff is trying to make a success of the Commission and, judging by the efficiency figures, it is succeeding. The Commission continues to be handicapped by the slowness of modernisation plans, due to capital restrictions, but the Commission has a great future if it is given the opportunity.

9.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): As is customary with a Private Bill for the British Transport Commission, containing thirty or forty Clauses, the debate has ranged far and wide and has covered many points, with most of which I hope to be able to deal even if I have some difficulty in coping with all of the geography.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) spoke about the Carlisle-Gretna marshalling yard. That yard is one of first-class importance. Hon. Members who know about railways know that new marshalling yards are one of the foundations of a better freight service, and we just cannot have them too soon. I am certain that the Commission will do its best to acquire the necessary land there in a sympathetic way. It will have to proceed under the normal procedure of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts, but there is not a tremendous amount of flexibility in deciding where to put a marshalling yard of that kind. I am sure, however, that the Commission will do all it can to meet local opposition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) posed a number of questions about the operation of the Commission in that area, and he suggested that the Commission should have a joint conference together with the three county councils concerned with the Lake District. I am sure that the Commission will take note of that suggestion, and that


if it feels that any progress would be made by having such a conference it will hold one. I am sure that the Commission will also take note of my hon. Friend's comments about the value of home-grown hardwood. I know how keen my hon. Friend is on that subject and I hope that use will be found for it. The Commission has been thinking increasingly of prestressed concrete sleepers, more particularly for its continuous-welded lines, and I should think that they are probably the right answer.
Turning to the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I find that we have already been able to examine this proposal for a crossing, so that, if and when the Commission proceeds by the National Parks Act procedure and an application for a pedestrian crossing is made to us, I can safely say that we shall raise no objection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) expressed eloquently his anxiety about the future of the railway shops in Ashford. Having visited one or two of our railway shops I can sympathise with his feelings for the men who enter the shops in a family tradition and are naturally anxious about their. future there. I find that the intention of the Commission there is not to close the whole of the shops. These shops deal with wagon and coach works as well as with locomotives, and the proposal of the Commission is to close only the part which deals with locomotives. At present 1,300 men are employed there, and the Commission has worked out a plan to operate over the next four years which will reduce that total, by stages, to 1,000 in 1961. The Commission thinks that over four years the redundant 300 men should be taken up without much difficulty by normal wastage, and it can certainly ensure that all apprentices will be able to finish their training over the period.
I am also glad to be able to say that the Commission has consulted the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade with a view to bringing in a new heavy engineering industry which could take the place of the locomotive industry either when it finally finishes, or indeed earlier if such a thing is possible. So,

as far as it is practicable to deal with the effects of such a change, I can assure the House that the Commission is doing so.
It is right to put this change in perspective by pointing out that it is the direct consequence of the modernisation which we all want to see. The old steam engine, which we have all enjoyed seeing from childhood upwards, is not a very efficient form of motive power compared with electric and diesel engines. The average hours of work which the steam engine can do are about ten out of the twenty-four, whereas the electric or diesel engine will do about twenty. This obviously means that in due course we shall want about half the number of motive power units for our railway system, and therefore inevitably it will be necessary to close down a certain number of the railway shops. As far as it is humanly possible, however, the Commission is doing this in a reasonable way. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend.
Turning to the difficult problem of the level crossing on the Newcastle-Emlyn branch—[Interruption.]—I regret that it is not within my competence to pronounce the name properly, and so I must leave it to the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) with her charming voice. I cannot explain how it was that the divisional road engineer, when he inspected it, took a view different from the official view of the Ministry. I can only suppose that the hon. Lady must have been there at the time, when naturally he was only too glad to agree with whatever she suggested.
I find, in fact, that our railway inspectorate, which is regarded as completely reliable in all matters of safety, has been able to say that this is a sound arrangement despite the gradient. I concede that to a layman it does not seem that keeping the gates shut is the most up-to-date arrangement with the engine driver having to get out of the train to open and shut them. Nevertheless, it may be the right way where traffic is extremely small. As hon. Members have already pointed out, there are only two trains daily in each direction. I understand that the 25-wagon locals, about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was anxious,


will be carefully kept to and that no inspector is likely to go along and give any ruling to the contrary.

Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. They have to insist that the working timetable is altered to make the maximum 25 instead of 35 as at present.

Mr. Nugent: I am told that the working timetable will be altered to make it 25 when this arrangement is introduced.
The crossing keeper will be cared for under the normal redundancy arrangements and dealt with according to the usual arrangement with the trade unions. In answer to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools I can say that no maximum is to be put on the number of trains, but the Commission will carefully watch the working of this arrangement, as will our own inspectorate. I can assure the House that this matter has been carefully considered and, although it may not seem the most modern arrangement. I am assured that it is the best solution in the circumstances. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Speir) expressed anxiety about the rural transport difficulties in his constituency and, of course, I know well his deep interest in the matter. I felt that he was being a little hard on the British Transport Commission in his strictures. The rural transport problem is common throughout the country and all of us who live in rural areas experience it in one way or another. It is a problem which goes far deeper than simply having the Commission modernise its affairs in dealing with branch lines.
We are in an age when the mechanical vehicle on the road—motor car, "moped" or motor bicycle—is increasingly being used and all the time subtracting from the use of public transport. It is a problem to which none of us knows the answer. All we can do is to make such provision as we can to provide for those who have no transport of their own so that they can continue to get about. We are continually considering one means or another by which to do that.
I can say quite flatly that it is the Commission's policy to keep branch lines open wherever it can. One need only look at the picture of the branch lines the

Commission is keeping open—many at very heavy loss—to appreciate this. I agree that sometimes the Commission does not present its case with all the merit it might, but there is no doubt that it is keeping branch lines open as long as it can.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is not to have one of the diesel buses in his area. However, progress with diesels in the North-Eastern Region has been extremely good. Some 578 multiple diesel units have been sent there out of a total in the country of 2,800, so that on average the North-Eastern Region is well ahead of any other region. It is probably for that reason that it has not yet got diesel buses. Although diesel buses are excellent and are undoubtedly a step in the right direction—

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Are they British?

Mr. Nugent: As far as I know, they are British, they are fairly expensive, although only single coach.
Any wagon which travels on the railways has to be far stronger and far heavier-built than the ordinary road vehicle. It costs about four times as much as a road vehicle of the same capacity. One immediately appreciates the heavier capital costs with which the railways have to deal in providing their rolling stock. The Commission will closely watch the progress with these coaches. If they are able to help us in some of these difficult rural areas, I do not doubt that the Commission will be only too glad to provide more of them.
In passing, I want to say that the experience with the light diesel sets, such as we have had on the Banbury—Bletchley line, has not been very encouraging. The sets are somewhat expensive to run and, although they attract more traffic, it does not appear that it will be sufficient to make them a paying proposition. Although we are optimistic about what diesel buses may do we must not expect miracles. They can bring in some extra traffic but they cannot in all circumstances make lines pay which do not pay now.
According to the 1955 census the Hexham-Hawick branch line carried fifteen passengers per day, with only two per train. The passenger traffic had


almost petered out. I am not sure whether that figure included the guard or the engine driver, but I assume that the two were in addition to them. When the Transport Users' Consultative Committee considered the matter it felt that it had no alternative but to allow the line to be closed down. To the Commission's credit, however, when the Consultative Committee made a proviso that a bus service should be laid on to Bellingham that was done, and the service is still running.

Mr. Ernest Davies: With two passengers?

Mr. Nugent: I hope that it is with more than two passengers. At any rate, something was done to meet the needs of the local people. I hope that their convenience has not suffered too much by reason of the passenger service being discontinued There are five freight trains per week, which again is a rather light service. In addition, I am told that troop trains travel on that line very seldom. It is obvious that the line was scarcely being used. It would be very hard if, in our concern for the rural areas, we screwed down the Commission and made it continue to run services at such a heavy loss. We must have a sense of proportion.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) made some valuable comments about rail safety, and just to fill in the picture I obtained figures of passenger casualties over the five years from 1952 to 1956. During that period 308 people were seriously injured on the railways, as compared with 287,635 on the roads. The number of people killed on the railways was 173, against the road figures of between 25,000 and 30,000. When the matter is put in perspective, therefore, one sees what an admirable record the railways have. We are all horrified when we hear of a serious rail accident, but it is a pity that we are not more horrified at the road accident figures. However, these are the facts of life. We live in an age of movement and of rapid transport, and this danger is with us all the time, but there is no doubt that if railway transport is compared with any other form of transport it stands up extremely well.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) complained about Work No. 18,

and I am sure that the Commission will take note of what he said. It will also no doubt bear in mind that this is a Private Bill. Any promoter knows what weight an individual Member carries. He can object to the Bill and make a very great nuisance of himself. A Private Bill promoter is therefore always concerned to see that he does everything possible to conciliate the opposition of any Member of Parliament. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hems-worth need feel anxious on that score.

Mr. Gower: On the subject of the safety of British Railways, does not my hon. Friend think that the Transport Commission could make more of it by advertising to the public from time to time that this is the safest form of transport, and that it is very beneficial to travel by British Railways?

Mr. Nugent: It does advertise, of course.

Mr. Gower: But more than it does at present.

Mr. Nugent: Quite a number of advertisements of that kind are used. It may be that notice will be taken of what my hon. Friend says.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) had an encouraging word to say about the Notts-Derby service and went on to talk about the B.T.C. and its waterways. The Commission is spending large sums of money on the remunerative part of its waterways, particularly the estuarial waterways. The hon. Member referred to the Trent which is one of the best. But the Commission hesitates to spend money on narrow canals, which, one, can take only narrow boats; two, need a good deal of upkeep; and, three, where it is a question of balance whether they can pay their way at all. Naturally we await the Bowes Report with interest. It would be a mistake to leave the impression that the Commission is not active on this score. It spends several million £ each year renovating and improving the remunerative part of its waterways.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect the Bowes Report?

Mr. Nugent: It is coming rather slowly like canal traffic usually does. I am


assured that it will be with us soon, I hope in the next few weeks or at any rate within a month or two. The Committee has had a tremendous volume of evidence to deal with and it is in the process of composing its final report.
I join with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in welcoming the agreement over the Haddiscoe Cut. Efforts to try to find a way to keep it open for the benefit of local yatchsmen and boatmen have added grey hairs to the heads of most of us. It has no commercial value at all, but it has a great recreational value for local people and we can be grateful that we have come to a useful agreement.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: It is not only of value to people in the neighbourhood. There is scarcely an hon. Member who has not a constituent who has used the Cut, and therefore it is of interest to the whole of the yachting fraternity.

Mr. Nugent: That we have been made well aware of.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) I would say that South West Wales is getting a good share of the modernisation plan. The big works at Margam are being carried out at a cost of over £1 million and there are new marshalling yards costing over £2 million. The new diesel service to the Midlands is already working.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East dealt with the question of capital investment and modernisation and I wish to reply to the important points which he made. I will concede that the position is rather confusing. The amount we have authorised, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last September, is £170 million for 1958 and £175 million for 1959. That leaves British Railways with £.145 million for 1958 and £145 million to £150 million for 1959, against its original programme of £151 million for 1958 and £148 million for 1959. It is true that on those figures the cuts that we made are relatively small, and on the face of it they do not present a serious problem.
In the meantime, however, the Commission was in process of accelerating its modernisation plan. The final picture from the regions made clear that the

effect of the capital investment ceiling we have had to impose for these two years has removed this element of acceleration that the Commission was trying to promote. No doubt the capital cuts that we made, in the context of the Government's general financial and economic policy were right, and have saved issues that mattered to us even more than this; they saved the value of the £ sterling. Nevertheless, this has been a serious disappointment. Combined with the rest of the picture of the Commission's activities it has, I agree, given rise to anxiety.
I confirm that the effect of the cuts has been distributed as carefully as possible, in order to avoid interfering with electrification. It remains effective to some extent on the installation of the continuous brake, on the rollingstock programme, on the diesel mainline loco, and the station improvements. Automatic train control has not been cut and in fact the Commission now hopes, in response to the general anxiety on the matter, to accelerate the A.T.C. programme in the coming year. Although A.T.C. is not a money earner it is an additional safety device and naturally we wish to proceed with it as quickly as we can. On the question of traffics—

Mr. Popplewell: How long was it before the Ministry of Transport gave the "O.K." to the A.T.C.?

Mr. Nugent: The matter was with us for some time because there were considerable technical problems to be satisfied before we could be sure that we had something which was completely safe to use in the various circumstances of electrified lines. Our time was not spent in sitting and looking at it. Important work was going on all the time.
The passenger picture has been fairly good in 1957. Despite all the difficulties of passenger journeys the receipts are up on 1956. Evidently there has been a valuable response to the new diesel trains. I concede that the freight picture, especially in the second half of last year, shows a downward trend and it is a matter for anxiety. We are certainly worrying about it in the Ministry of Transport as indeed is the Commission. Inevitably in the first year of modernisation most of the work will be groundwork and not fresh revenue earning. We are now considering the


matter with the Chairman of the Commission and reviewing the progress of the modernisation programme in the light of the trend of freight. We are certainly considering the requirements of capital expenditure in the years that lie ahead.
I most certainly roundly assert that the Government are fully behind the modernisation plan. After all, we are the originators of it, and we have had the privilege of finding the extra finance to modernise our railway system. We are not proposing to see it fail for any lack of anything that we can do. We fully realise the importance of maintaining the momentum and we shall do all we possibly can in that direction.
Our objective continues to be that the Commission shall be solvent by 1961–62. In the meantime a very great deal of work is going on throughout the country. It would be wrong to leave the impression that it is not. I have travelled over all the regions now and I can say that modernisation is going on in many ways in freight and passenger services. A spirit of enthusiasm and interest has been shown by railway officials whom I have met, because they see a new chance and a new hope to bring back the British railway system as the leading railway system in the world, as it was three generations ago.
I assure the House that it is our intention that everything we can do to provide means to complete this job which the Commission has so well started shall be fully accorded. I hope after this interesting and varied debate that the House will now be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

NORTHERN IRELAND TEXTILES (EXPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

9.59 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: Export problems of the textile trade are very numerous. I intend to concentrate tonight on those which particularly affect the linen trade in Northern Ireland. This is a craft industry which is facing increasing competition from man-made fibres, but nevertheless, it is a very valuable industry.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

Mrs. McLaughlin: The value of United Kingdom exports of types of linen made principally in Northern Ireland, including yarn and thread, is very high in proportion to the size of the industry, but, unfortunately, during the last three years, it has been steadily declining. In 1954, the export value was almost £18 million, but by 1957 it had fallen to £15,700,000. The drop in Northern Ireland was approximately £1 million from 1956 to 1957. In our record year, 1951, total exports were approximately £22 million.
There are many reasons for this, one being the increasing importation of cotton and other textiles from Hong Kong, China, Japan, India, and similar areas. It has now reached the astounding figure of 400 million square yards imported to this country in the last year. Some of this is re-exported in competition overseas with the cheaper qualities, and also with better qualities of linen which, in the past, have been such valuable exports from Northern Ireland, and still are. These imports of cheap materials also hit our home markets.
The linen industry is a small one and faces competition from Iron Curtain countries such as Poland and Hungary. I think that there might be a fair case for using the anti-dumping law and I propose that this should be considered


as soon as possible to see whether suitable action can be taken to bring unsatisfactory incidents before the Monopolies Commission for proper investigation.
I believe that there should be world agreement in regard to goods that are protected by monopoly tariffs. Otherwise, it will be impossible for countries which have reached a high standard of working conditions and wages to maintain those standards. That is particularly true of all our textile trade, whose exports are steadily diminishing.
I will quote one example to show how damage has been done to the industry by the export from Czechoslovakia to this country of a tablecloth. It is subject to a 15 per cent. import duty and is still selling, despite this duty, at one-third less than the cost of a tablecloth of pure linen of similar size. The Czechoslovakian tablecloth is described as "linen cloth with cotton decoration," but it is really two-thirds cotton and one-third linen. This is a point which the Minister should investigate as soon as possible.
Textile manufacturers in Britain and Northern Ireland are afraid that the Government have decided that textiles are an expendable industry in this country and they are pessimistic about the way in which our trade negotiators fail to include consumer goods, particularly textiles, among commodities from countries making such agreements with us. Many of those countries are anxious to buy our capital goods, such as aeroplanes, machinery and motor cars, and, in return, we agree to buy goods from those countries if they buy our exports. Unfortunately, it seems that we have to take goods which are not of prime importance and which are, in some cases, in direct competition with our own industries. A two-way fair trade is essential. But we in this country take a wide variety of consumer goods from other countries. It is fair to expect, in return that our trade negotiators will insist that a proportion of textiles and other consumer goods shall be bought from us by those countries.
We need to toughen up our efforts before it is too late, and before many of our trades have dwindled almost to vanishing point. The linen trade has lost large markets in Brazil and the Argentine, and this has been mainly due to the growth of local industries there. It is

fair to say that those local industries are not producing quality textiles that come up to the standard of Irish linen, and their protected textiles would not be in direct competition with our high-grade linen which was such a valuable export to those countries in years past.
Brazil's quota restrictions are very severe, and I would ask the Government whether it is not possible to reopen negotiations with the Brazilian Government on this matter. The Argentine takes no linen at present. Both there and in some of the other South American countries we must be firm about the need for trying to increase the markets for our textile exports in general. Our trade consuls and commercial representatives overseas are not always as fully in touch as they might be with the industrialists and those in commerce in the countries to which they are assigned by the Government.
I know that last year's overall trade was extremely good and that the Government are to be congratulated on many aspects of it, but if the Minister will examine the figures he will see that textiles, and, in particular, linen, suffered badly. It is possible that some of these problems arise from small firms endeavouring to keep pace with much bigger ones in the great expense of sending their own salesmen overseas in the hope of finding markets.
I believe that many small firms will have to get together to share their sales efforts. That would be to their mutual advantage, and would mean that their co-ordinated efforts would produce bigger and better sales campaigns. But the Government are responsible for seeing that the close connection between diplomatic and trade negotiators does not prevent the trade representatives from doing their work by being too much in the shadow of the diplomatic circle.
There are many tired and disillusioned men in the textile industry at present, and particularly is this true of the Northern Ireland linen industry. If they are to have the incentive to step up their sales policy and to reorganise their industry it is essential that the Government do everything they can to help their home trade as well as support the export trade, because, without a home trade, it is very difficult to have a healthy and expanding export trade.
I would remind the Minister that the credit squeeze hits small industries very badly. There is an impression abroad that Northern Ireland is not subject to the credit squeeze in the same way as are other parts of the United Kingdom. This impression is entirely false. It has been extremely difficult for the smaller industries, and particularly for the smaller linen firms, to maintain their export trade, because it has been practically impossible for them to make sales on the home market where they may try out their goods, and where, indeed, they depend for the basic trade which makes it possible for them to send salesmen in search of new markets abroad.
We recognise that the credit squeeze was applied for essential reasons, and we also very definitely recognise that prosperity for Britain is essential if there is to be prosperity in any industry in Northern Ireland, but surely the time has come to allow some relaxation so as to make it easier for the small industries to obtain credit, at any rate in this country. Otherwise, that trade will shrink so drastically that when, eventually, this tight money policy can be relaxed all round it will be impossible for these firms to recover.
It is unfortunate that it is always the smaller traders that have to suffer in this way. They feel that any policy such as that now being employed affects them much more rapidly than do the bigger concerns. Between 1951 and 1957, there has been a drop of over 11,000 persons employed in the linen industry, and a drop, in 1956–57 alone, of over 1,100. This is not solely due to automation and modernisation, although that has been going on steadily since the war, it is true, but to the shrinking world trade and increasing competition that I have already mentioned.
At present, in the linen industry alone, there are 3,400 unemployed workers in Northern Ireland, and the number of unemployed in the textile trade in Ulster is nearly 6,000. These people have no possibility of turning to alternative employment, and they look to the linen and textile manufacturers and merchants for their livelihood. They cannot remove themselves to another part of Northern Ireland, for there is no work available

elsewhere that they can obtain. They are in a particularly difficult situation. Indeed, many of them feel that, somehow or another, the Government have lost interest in the textile industry, and, in particular, in this small craft industry, which is such a very large dollar earner, and which would be an even bigger dollar earner if given the opportunity.
I know that the Government have very much at heart the interests of all those who are endeavouring to increase our export trade, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a strong assurance that he and his Department have the interests of the textile industry in general very much at heart. I hope that they will do all they can to endeavour to clear up these difficulties and to help those firms in the linen and other textile industries which are now finding that it is extraordinarily difficult to keep up with the increase in competition from other materials in the face of the tight money policy at home and the impossibility of spending very much to boost their sales abroad.
This is a matter which, for a long time, has caused a good deal of concern among the linen manufacturers of Northern Ireland. Many of them have said that it may not be possible for them to continue for very much longer if the present state of affairs is not drastically altered. I believe that much of the remedy is in their own hands, but they need an assurance and some guidance from the Government, and, I would say, even a guarantee that their efforts will not be unrewarded and that the support they receive will be really worth while.

10.12 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to occupy more than about three minutes in this very important but short debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) has pointed out most eloquently the position of the linen industry in Northern Ireland, and I should like to extend the scope of the debate for a moment to something which is very similar—the cotton textile industry in Lancashire. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the difficulties caused by the competition from Hong Kong, from low-paid labour, from Communist capital in Hong Kong, which is making the most of the present situation.
and the very low costs and the cheap technicians brought in from Shanghai.
The cotton industry is very similar, in many ways, to the linen industry, but, of course, it is very much larger. Forty years ago, the production of Lancashire cotton textiles was about 8,000 million yards. Today, the total production is about one-fifth of that figure, being 1,700 million yards. The imports are also very near to the export figures, which is an extraordinary position when one considers the traditional exports of Lancashire in the old days. It meant, in some months of last year, that the actual imports of grey cloth into Lancashire were greater than the exports.
The number of textile workers in Lancashire has diminished by about 50,000 in the last five years. In the last three years alone, 300 textile mills in Lancashire have closed. That is, perhaps, an over-abbreviation of a most difficult case. Lancashire has great textile traditions, hut Lancashire is feeling very sore at the treatment which the Government have meted out to it in the last three or four years. There is no doubt that Lancashire demands, and has a right to, far better treatment than it has received in the recent past.

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): This is an interesting and important subject which my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mrs. McLaughlin) has raised, and I congratulate her on the way she deployed her arguments. I am also very grateful to her for having given me notice of the points she intended to make. I have a great deal to say in reply to her on matters that affect Northern Ireland, particularly concerning the linen industry, about which she is concerned. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) will excuse me if I do not refer to the remarks he tried to cram into two or three minutes, because I shall need all my time to deal with Northern Ireland.
I have two reasons for concentrating on the linen industry of Northern Ireland. First, my hon. Friend herself showed her great knowledge of the linen and textile industry. She shows her interest in the industry in the most practical form by always wearing linen. She is a model Member, both as Member and

as model. My second reason is that I very recently paid a visit to Northern Ireland myself, and I should like to say a word about that. My visit was far too brief, being for only forty-eight hours, punctuated by having to return to vote in the House of Commons. However, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I had a most interesting and crowded visit—or, I should say, couple of visits—and I was very impressed by what I saw.
I should like, through my hon. Friend, to express my thanks to the Northern Ireland Government and everyone there who co-operated to make my visit so interesting and enjoyable. Through the Ministry of Commerce of Northern Ireland, the Board of Trade is always at the service of Northern Irish industry, and the linen industry in particular, if there are any problems in which we can help.
My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties which the linen industry is facing in maintaining its exports, and she mentioned particularly Brazil and the Argentine. I admit that our export losses in those markets have been heavy for linen. Fortunately, they represent only a small part of our export trade, and in other markets exports have been very much better maintained.
What we are facing in this export market is a very familiar problem. Any country which is trying to industrialise itself—to pull itself up by its boot-straps—tends to concentrate its effort on the manufacture of consumer goods, because, of course, it is easier to create consumer goods industries rather than capital goods industries. Moreover, such countries usually protect the infant industries by a tariff.
If a country runs into balance of payments difficulties, it tends, first of all, to restrict the import of luxury goods, quality goods, by means of quotas or multiple exchange rates, or any other protectionist devices. We must face the fact that, beyond protestation, there is very little we can do about it. If other countries choose to discriminate against consumer goods, or if they choose to protect an inefficient industry and deprive their citizens of the benefits of the better quality goods we can supply, frankly, we cannot do much more than protest and remind them, if the occasion is suitable, that we have powers of retaliation when countries discriminate against our goods.
I gather that my hon. Friend feels that the Board of Trade does not attach as much importance to the export of consumer goods as it does to exports of machinery and capital goods in general. Quite frankly, this is just not so. A dollar or peso, or whatever it may be, is worth just as much to us if it is earned by consumer goods as by a power station or by an electronic computer, and we fight just as hard to get our textiles or any other consumer goods fair treatment in the export markets.
In Brazil, we have, at least, made very special representations to the authorities about the effects of their import restrictions and tariffs on linen imports from the United Kingdom. We had thought that the Northern Irish industry was appreciative of the action we are taking. I know that the linen industry has a tough battle to fight, but we are still fighting on its side. Negotiations are still going on which will cover textiles.
I was very sorry to hear it alleged that the industry thought that our commercial officers overseas did not have the right sort of contacts and were not able to give the sort of help which should be given to linen exports. I cannot accept this criticism as justified or fair, at any rate without rather more evidence than has been educed. Of course, I should always consider any evidence that the hon. Lady or the industry can bring forward, because no service is perfect, but I assure my hon. Friend that against her criticism I can produce as witnesses many active and efficient exporting industries to pay tribute to the work of our commercial diplomatic officers overseas. I assure her also that all the posts are continually briefed from home about the various industries with the exports of which they may have to deal. Let us not forget what an enormous variety it is that they have to encompass. They are certainly well aware that in many markets, textile exports, particularly the higher quality goods such as linen, make a most valuable contribution.
There are one or two minor points with which I should like to deal before turning to the more constructive part of what I have to say. My hon. Friend quoted the case of a tablecloth which was imported from the other side of the Iron Curtain

and sold under what seemed to be a misleading description. If the facts are as reported, it seems to me that there may be a case for examination under the Merchandise Marks Act as one of misleading trade description. I hope that the linen industry will take note of the fact that it can lay claim to the protection of that Act.
Then my hon. Friend referred to a world agreement for dealing with exports from behind the Iron Curtain. I am not clear whether the reference is to what might be regarded as "dumping" in the United Kingdom or to what might be claimed as unfair competition in third markets. She mentioned the possibility of action in the former case, but that matter raises wider and deeper issues which the House will not expect me to deal with here and now.
Turning to what the industry can do for itself, I am certain that nothing that the Government can do by protection or trade negotiation or by assistance to exports can help an industry which is not willing and able to help itself. This means two things: first, efficient production to keep prices down or even to reduce them and, secondly, good quality and design.
My hon. Friend referred to the fall in employment figures in the Northern Ireland linen industry, but I notice that in the same period, during the last seven years, the production of loom-state cloth has fallen by a smaller amount and that it has been constant or slightly rising during the past four or five years. I presume from that that in fact those figures indicate a considerable increase in efficiency. I know that linen is said to be a craft industry, and I know that particularly in the finest and highest grades of most types of production there is a much higher degree of craft and skill.
I am convinced—and our experience in other industries shows it to be the case —that there are very few jobs to which human hands can be put which cannot be made easier, faster and more efficient by study and research. While in Northern Ireland, I learned something of the work which the very efficient Linen Industry Research Association is doing. I persist in hoping that there will be a continual and steady flow of technological improvement in the linen industry. I am convinced that if there is not, it will be unable to maintain its position against


industries which are modernising themselves efficiently.
I realise that the Northern Irish industry has its difficulties—I shall return to this point again—in a great number of small spheres. It is always a tragic thing to see the small independent man suffering under the pressure of his larger and more impersonal competitors. I fear that that is the way the world is going. I am impressed by the thought that the remedies which may provide the answer to the linen trade's difficulties—modernisation, re-equipment, design and selling—are all the more difficult for the small man than for the larger firm. Nevertheless, the tradition particularly in an industry like this, of the small independent firm is a valuable one. I think that the linen industry should see what it can do to help to preserve those who are prepared to fit themselves to survival in a modern, competitive world.
I have already referred to the Research Association and I very much hope that the smaller firms, as well as the larger firms, will make use of its co-operative services. May I suggest that they and the industry as a whole should give very serious thought to the possibilities of cooperative selling abroad. I know that this is not an easy problem, particularly when the various products being sold are the result of individual ideas in construction and design and are themselves competitive with each other for the eye and pocket of the public. I do not, however, believe that the problem is beyond solution. Certainly, if a solution can be found, it will then be possible for the smaller firms to penetrate into and to cover markets where individually they could not afford singly to maintain the necessary selling connections.
It is not simply a matter of increasing their exports, but of providing the opportunity of spreading themselves over several markets and, therefore, giving themselves some sort of assurance against the sudden changes in commercial policy which we in the Board of Trade always do our best to combat, but cannot always prevent.
I should like to say something about design. Here, the linen industry is in the familiar dilemma of an old-established industry with behind it a long tradition of distinguished design for

people of discrimination. Many of its customers look for the designs in the old style or something descended from it which will have the cachet of traditional Irish linens. Many other customers will have been attracted by the new and brilliant designs very often coming from countries across the Atlantic or derived from the Latin temperament and sense of style.
If they do not find them in Irish linen, they may decide that it is not only old-established, but old-fashioned. Moreover, if copying or emulating modern designs may create the dangers of ghastly bad taste—we all see examples of this sometimes in fashion magazines—a slavish attempt to emulate the designers of a hundred years ago may all too easily result in ghastly good taste—and I have seen examples of that in some shop windows in London.
What it all comes to is that neither tradition nor a desperate search for innovation will do the job. What the industry needs is a corps of active-minded, adequately-trained and gifted designers who are able to draw upon the inspiration of the past or, equally, to produce work in the most modern idiom. This means a serious and prolonged effort by the industry itself to create a lively school of design and it cannot be done on the cheap. But things are moving in the industry, which now has a member on the Council of Industrial Design, and I hope that the result will be additional opportunities for the industry to see what is happening in good textile designs all over the world.
One last point. The standard of living of the world is rising. The obverse side of the industrialisation to which I referred earlier, which creates real difficulties to our consumer goods industries, is the creating all over the world of increasing markets for better consumer goods. I have every sympathy for the linen industry in the difficulties which it is undergoing and I know well the problems of unemployment, particularly those which present themselves in Northern Ireland. If, however, the vigour and vitality of those whom I met and the firms whose works I saw in Northern Ireland is typical. I am certain that the industry will successfully meet the challenge of this changing age.

Sir J. Barlow: Can my hon. Friend spare a word for Lancashire? This


Adjournment debate was supposed to be on the exports of the textile trade. I have raised the question of Lancashire textiles, but my hon. Friend has not uttered a word about them in his answer. I know that the time at his disposal is short, but I am very disappointed that he has not said something about it.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I had to cut

out a great deal of what I wished to address tonight to both of my hon. Friends on the matters they have raised. I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not consider me courteous, but he might have raised the matter on the Adjournment himself.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.